A long time ago, Jim and I were shopping for trees. We discovered we could order male ash trees — as opposed to female trees. Of course, “male” was what we call the tree’s sex, which is biological. It was not the tree’s gender, which would be role. The tree’s main intended role, by the way, was “shade tree.”
The existence of male, female, and true hermaphrodite trees and plants comes to mind when people are discussing “what is sex?”, “what is gender?”, and “do their meanings differ?”. The correct answer is that they do differ. Sex is biological; gender is a role. Today, I’ll focus on biological sex.
So what is biological sex? Let’s start by asking this question:
When biologists discover a new species that reproduces sexually, how do they decide which of the two sexes is male, which is female, and whether, possibly, individuals are both simultaneously?
The answer is that they examine the gametes an individual produces. In sexually reproducing species, there are two types of gametes. Some species are observed to have one larger, nutrient-rich, usually non-motile gamete (i.e., egg) and one smaller, non-nutritive, mobile gamete (e.g., sperm, pollen). These species, with differently sized gametes, are called “anisogamous.” The individuals whose reproductive organs create the smaller gametes only are called males. The ones that create the larger gametes only are called females. Individuals that create both are biological, or true, hermaphrodites.
It may be worth noting that hermaphrodites may be sequential hermaphrodites, or simultaneous hermaphrodites. When a hermaphrodite is sequential, it is referred to as male during periods when it creates the smaller gametes, and female when it creates the larger, nutritive gametes. The identification of its current state of maleness or femaleness depends on the gametes it is currently producing.
Sex in humans
Humans are an anisogamous, sexually reproducing species. As such, biologically, humans are nearly always either male or female. Most humans are male or female, though disorders of sex development and other conditions do occur. Those whose sexual organs are designed to produce sperm are males; those that produce ova are females.
True hermaphroditism in humans — ovotesticular disorder (DSD) — is extremely rare, occurring in roughly 1 in 80,000–100,000 births. Other disorders exist: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), and Klinefelter syndrome (47, XXY). Sometimes, the XYY chromosomal variation occurs.
It is worth noting: even when disorders, conditions, or syndromes occur, the biological sex of the individual is based on the gametes their body produces. Their biological sex does not depend on their phenotype — the appearance of their body or organs. However, since gonads produce gametes, and testes produce sperm while ovaries produce eggs, those with testes are males, and those with ovaries are females.
With respect to disorders: individuals with XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) have testes, which may produce sperm, though function may be impaired. XYY individuals also have testes and, generally, normal sperm production. In all three cases, the bodies are designed to produce sperm, though that production may be impaired. So all of these individuals are biologically male. Individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) have a typical complement of gonads—ovaries in genetic females (XX) and testes in genetic males (XY).
The only disorder in which an individual is not specifically male or female is ovotesticular disorder (DSD); these individuals are true hermaphrodites.
Assignment at birth
Let me now discuss the notion of “assignment” at birth. What is really happening during “assignment”? What is intended?
At birth, doctors, midwives, and perhaps even the cab drivers who deliver the baby—because there was insufficient time to get to the hospital—will often inspect the newborn and, based on that inspection, decree, likely with some joy, “It’s a boy,” or “It’s a girl.” Along with that, they may also decree, “Ten fingers! Ten toes!” Perhaps, occasionally, whoever is in attendance will be stumped. The ensuing, “Yikes. I can’t tell!” is likely less joyful, as would be “Wow! Twelve toes!”
What is going on here? Well, what’s happening is that the attendants are doing a physical inspection of the phenotype—the outer physical appearance—and making a guess at the baby’s biological sex based on that phenotype. If the baby has a penis and external testes, they diagnose the sex as “boy,” that is, “male.” If the baby has a vulva and no penis, they diagnose the sex as female. Those diagnosing the biological sex usually do so in good faith, and usually do so correctly. However, misdiagnosis can occur, particularly in cases of disorders of sex development or other atypical phenotypes.
After the diagnosis, whoever fills out the birth certificate will check the “sex” box according to their diagnosis: male or female. Some states permit “undetermined,” “X,” or similar. So, they fill out the box to reflect their guess or diagnosis of the sex based on the child’s appearance.
Even in rare cases where underlying gamete potential cannot be diagnosed unambiguously based on external genitalia, the baby’s biological sex — defined by the gametes its body is designed to produce — remains a distinct attribute.
I don’t wish to stray into “gender” too far; I’d like to discuss that in a later post. But it is true that the diagnosis of the child’s sex is one of the things that can affect how parents relate to the child, and later what roles or behavioral expectations parents or others have for the child. Biologically, the baby’s sex exists independently of how the box is checked. To the extent that “gender” is assigned, it occurs socially, through the parents’ or other people’s response to the diagnosis of biological sex. But this does not change the baby’s sex. The baby’s sex is a biological attribute and is not “assigned” by doctors, parents, or society.
In summary: sex is a biological attribute that can be determined by the gametes an individual’s reproductive system creates. Some disorders or syndromes can affect how an individual looks, but their sex remains determined by the gametes they produce. An individual’s sex is not “assigned” at birth; it exists prior to birth and remains unchanged by the diagnosis doctors or others make at birth.
I invite you to discuss this. You may discuss gender also, but I intend a later post on what gender is. Briefly, gender is not biological; it is a social role.
Lucia, your post:
“ Even in rare cases where underlying gamete potential cannot be diagnosed unambiguously based on external genitalia”
Do you have any numbers on how rare this is?
AND:
“ Those diagnosing the biological sex usually do so in good faith, and usually do so correctly. However, misdiagnosis can occur,”
Likewise, do you have any numbers on how rare this is?
” Sex is biological; gender is a role.”
I am not sure about gender as a role. It used to be a grammatical category until people started to deliberately misuse the term. And these days it is often used as a synonym for sex. One can easily find things on the internet like “trees can be classified into three genders: male, female, and hermaphroditic”.
“Shade tree”, unlike “fruit tree” is hardly a role that relates to sex or gender.
Is it really true that female gametes are always larger? I thought that the female was where the next generation (fruit, seeds, eggs, embryos) forms. Although I guess seahorses complicate that.
“grammatical category” and “used to be”?
Grammatical category doesn’t make it “not a role”. It is a grammatical category, and the category is what your role is.
No. it is an example of a role. And I picked it precisely because it does not relate to sex or gender. I think it is important to grasp what roles are.
There are lots of examples of “roles”. Sometimes depending on context a single word can denote something biological, legal social. “Mother-daughter” can refer to bio-mom, bio-daughter– biology. It can refer to adoptive mother-adoptive daughter– those are often legal and sometimes purely social.
We don’t have specific individual words to distinguish bewteen “bio Mom” and “adoptive Mom”– we use adjectives.
But biology and adoptions are different things. Biological reality and social roles are different things.
And of course, wheeling back to “Mom”– that is a type of relative.
As far as “used to be”: Gender was put forward as denoting psycholigical gender or social gender in the 50s. That means: before I was born.
And it’s increasingly used as such since them. It’s been used to denote a social construct in feminist literature from the 60s.
I know trans advocates wanting to extend title IX use of “sex” to “gender” and they want to claim there is no distinction. But there is a distinction and there has been since the 50s. Sex is biology. Gender is not.
lucia,
I know what a “role” is. I don’t see what it has to do with gender.
If a married woman is the breadwinner and her husband stays home and takes care of the kids; that is irrelevant to gender.
“Gender was put forward as denoting psycholigical gender or social gender in the 50s.”
I did not know it went back that far.
“It’s been used to denote a social construct in feminist literature from the 60s.”
That does not surprise me.
MikeM
Gender– as used in arguments about sex and gender is a role.
You’ve named two roles. That they have roles is irrelevant to their biological sex.
A role may or may not be relevant to gender. Being irrelevant to gender doesn’t make it “not a role”. You can play a horse in a nativity scene– that’s a role. It (probably) has nothing to do with gender– it’s still a role. We need to accept that some things are roles and that the word “role” exists independent of gender before we can discuss if gender is an example of a role.
Being a “stay at home X” is a role whether it is undertaken by a man or a woman. Whether that role is a “female” or “male” role or neither is a matter of some debate. (Likely, the stay at home husband you describe does not consider it a “female” role.)
Some roles are perceived as gendered by some people. (Not all people agree.) If someone says, his staying home makes him “not a real man”– and some do–they are referring to their idea of appropriate roles for men. They are telling you their societal expectation of appropriate roles for males.
Some people have rigid ideas about appropriate roles for females and males. Others do not. (I think this is an interesting vis-a-vis trans debates, but not one to go into now.)
I will discuss gender as a role in a later post. But briefly, someone plays or adopts the “role” of female– and behave in whatever way they think is female — they are playing the role of “female”.
BTW: “gender role” was coined by John Money in the 1955 . That’s before I was born. This usage– distinct from whether a noun is masculine or feminine in language– has caught on. It was introduced as something distinct from sex.
The feminist were using it the way Money was. And while I detect a whiff of animus toward feminist, the idea that some behaviors, rights and so on are appropriate for females and others for men was hardly dreamed up by feminists! I guess if you don’t want that discussed you might be upset that feminists used a word to describe these roles. But people use words to describe things that exist. It’s a bit much to get upset that feminist use words!
Russell
It’s rare. It’s not my goal to debate the exact numbers here. I’m too lazy to research exact numbers. I also think you can look up how often babies sex is misdiagnosed on your own. If there is some other underlying question, you can ask that. If you want to elaborate and add how rare in comments, go ahead.
lucia wrote: “But briefly, someone plays or adopts the “role” of female– and behave in whatever way they think is female — they are playing the role of “female”.”
OK, that makes sense. “Role” in the sense of a part played by an actor rather than in the sense of a function or position. I was confused by your use of “shade tree” as a role, which only fits the latter definition.
Functions, positions and parts played by actors are all roles. A person who is the mayor of a small town can act in his role of mayor or act in his personal capacity. Both are functions and position, not parts played by actors.
You can adopt a role. You can assume it and switch back between them. Some people adopt a particular role for a long, long time– possibly their life.
lucia,
You are using “role” in a way that deprives the word of meaning. The word has more than one definition. But a particular use of the word can only fit one of those definitions. They are not interchangeable.
MikeM,
Well…. I mean it as carrying out the functions associated with a position. Or perhaps, role is more specifically behaving in the way associated with a position– which means carrying out the intended functions.
A “position”– like mayor is like a “slot” in a social system. Any number of people might be placed or elected to that position. The position of mayor has a functions. The person placed in the position of mayor is expected to carry out those functions. Acting as mayor– carrying out the functions of mayor- is a role.
Now, one can also have a role in a play. That “role” is a position in the cast. And the person cast that role is expected to act out that part while in the play.
I get that sometimes words have different meanings. But here, the meaning is pretty much the same.
Acting as mayor is a role.
Acting as James Madison in a play is a role.
In both places they are carrying the functions of the position or slot. Same… same.
When we speak, we say the “mayor” is a role. We say “the part of James Madison” is a role. When we do that, we are using “role” as position– but it’s implied the person is expected to carry out the functions of that position.
I really don’t think this is that difficult. That’s how the word role is used.
Wow. Interesting topic. I just got back. I’ll be around later I guess. Time to unpack and make dinner.
lucia wrote: “Acting as mayor is a role.
Acting as James Madison in a play is a role.”
Those are examples of two different meanings of the word “role”. There is a very big difference between doing the job of mayor and pretending to be a mayor.
p.s. – Well, maybe not such a big difference if you are Bill De Blasio. 🙂
MikeM
No they are examples of role having exactly the same meaning in two cases.
It’s this:
“role is more specifically behaving in the way associated with a position”
So let’s unpack it:
(1) Mayor and the part of James Madison in a play are both positions.
(2) Behaving in a way associated with a position is a role.
So: (3) Behaving in the was associated with the position of Mayor is a role and behaving in the way associated with the position of “James Madison” in the play Madison is a role.
The word role is used precisely the same way in both cases.
The fact that the positions are different from each other or the behaviors expected for those in the positions does not make make use of “role” different in the two cases.
MikeM,
Out of curiosity, what do you think “gender” means when people are discussing sex and gender? Nothing? They clearly don’t mean a grammatical category for nouns, adjectives and articles in some languages like French.
I have had 6 children. Their gender (at birth) was never in doubt (I was there). All the rest is an obscure and silly discussion.
If someone really thinks they are something other than what their genes describe, that is fine with me, but please don’t insist that I use the required pronouns. 6′ 7′ with a hairy chest is not ever going to look like ‘Martha’. Sorry.
SteveF
I’d say their sex was never in doubt.
I’d also suggest that you, your wife, the doctor and everyone around them anticipated they would behave according to the gender that matches their sex — and they did. Whether you consider this a rigid boundaries on what they can doo…. my guess is no.
Nature is not binary so it’s not surprising there are edge cases of biological abnormality. What annoys me is when people try to normalize these actual biological edge cases to justify their socio-political opinions.
As lucia noted, individuals with actual XXY or XYY chromosomal pairings happen about 1 in 80,000 or 100,000 times. That’s not 1% or 2% or more as activists try to imply. I don’t think we should have to burden society by normalizing edge cases in order to accomodate people who want to feel different even though they lack the genetic abnormality.
Humans aren’t platypuses or hermaphroditic frogs — and I am offended by people who seem like they couldn’t pass high school physics telling me “believe the Science” like it’s some kind of incantation from Harry Potter.
SteveF
“They are” in what sense? I think biologically, they are not what the gametes their body makes describes. This is very close to what you mean by what their genes describe. But it deals with the — admittedly not very common– issue of people whose genes are XXY and XYY. ( Based on gametes, they are male btw.)
The issue of what pronouns you are going to use or could be required to use is definitely separate from identifying what their biological sex is.
And I agree with you that they can think whatever they want. In my view, what they think doesn’t change their biological sex.
I also think changing biological sex is beyond what is possible by modern science. What they call sex change operations does not install new gamete producing organs matching the new sex. It only attempts to change phenotype — appearance.
But I also think the term “gender” does have to do with what they think, what others think and so on. I don’t think you are required to agree with what they think. And that applied even more generally that to gender.
We are simply not required to all think the same thing. The fact that someone thinks something about their own sex role doesn’t require any of us to adopt their thoughts. We get to disagree.
Oh– I bet the boxes on your kids birth certificates indicate sex not gender. Illinois say sex, not gender. California says sex, not gender. I haven’t checked all 50 states. But I bet no one is assigning “gender” at birth. They are indicating “sex”.
lucia wrote: “Out of curiosity, what do you think “gender” means when people are discussing sex and gender?”
It varies. People often use “gender” as a synonym for biological sex, as SteveF just did. But it also used to describe whether someone “identifies” as male or female, or something else.
Does anyone actually claim that sex (as in actual sex) is being assigned at birth? Dumb question, I’m sure someplace, somebody is. But to be fair, one could make an argument that a legal categorization [a legal category or legal record, male or female] is being assigned and not actual sex.
Derek,
The edge cases of misidentification of sex at birth are generally Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). AIS is the case that causes the strum und drang in Olympics.
AIS are biological males, sometimes with internal testes. They get identified as female and parents might not figure out they are not female for a while. Based on stories in the news and so on, I think Caster Semenya and Imane Khelif, are likely AIS and biological males. If so, they are males– no matter what they think. Biology is not a “state of mind”.
It is difficult to believe parents or the individual themselves do not figure out the mis-identification at the onset of puberty when the individual does not begin to menstruate. But even if they don’t notice, based on the biological definition AIS with sperm making testes are male, not female.
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) can also result in misidentification, particularly in the case of XX individuals. These can be misidentified as male despite being ova producing. I don’t think these cases present big controversies in the olympics.
The other controversy in the Olympics are people who merely decree they “feel” they are a sex that does not match what their gonads say. These people are biologically what their gonads say. Testes and sperm? Male. Ovaries and ova? Female. The former are usually XY, but could be XXY or XYY. The latter are — as far as I am aware, always XX.
Gender? As far as I’m concerned, the can behave according to whatever gender role they prefer. But the testes/sperm producers are biologically male. The ovary/ova producers are female.
Mark Bofill
People use the phrase “gender assigned at birth”. I’m pretty sure the box or line filled out says “sex” . It does so in Illinois and California. I didn’t check other states.
Obviously, no one is interviewing the baby to identify its psychological preference. Rarely are they debating whether they should check “male” for the ones with penises and testes or “female” for the ones with vulva.
But the issue of “assigned at birth” needs to be addressed ….’cuz.
mark bofill,
‘Wow. Interesting topic’
For me, no, not interesting at all. 99.9% of the time (or close to that) the child’s gender is obvious at birth.. 99.99% of the time the child’s genes are obvious, even if the genitals are less obvious. If there are rare cases where things are confused, why should society be involved? I see no reason.
I think it is crucial to separate (extremely rare) developmental/genetic issues, where some social tolerance is likely justified, from psychological/emotional issues, with the later being a huge majority of the cases. ‘John’ may prefer to be called ‘Joan’….. but he is still John.
MikeM
Yes. I consider this an error. It’s also something that can lead to mistakes in thinking when discussing legal issues, rights, access to things like bathrooms.
In my view, it’s important to distinguish sex from gender. It is especially important if we eventually want to discuss legal rights, accomodations and so on.
That would be gender. They intend to take on a role– that is, behave and present themselves as occupying the ‘position’ (slot, placeholder) male or female.
They also want us to accept them in their chosen position (i.e. male or female), and to claim it is entirely valid for them to behave as befits that position and present themselves as being proper occupants of that position.
The extent their claim the right to occupy that position is a matter of debate. My view is we have a right to different views on their claim to these rights.
I also think debating the claims is easier if we first acknowledge what sex is and how it differs from gender. Conflating is not helpful.
SteveF,
This is a terminology question and I sort of want to know to grasp your point. Do you ever use the term “sex”? As in: the child has a sex? And what about ash trees? Do trees have a gender or sex?
SteveF,
I don’t know where your kids were all born. But I know you live in Mass and FL. Birth certificates in Mass and FL both list “sex”. Whether “gender” is obvious or not, no one in those states assigns gender at birth. They make no decrees about that whatsoever. They try to identify biological sex and check a box for sex.
I believe biological sex is a fixed immutable characteristic. With our current technology nobody can change their biological sex. We would need the ability to change the DNA in every cell in the body, plus grow artificial organs to even attempt to perform a true sex change.
Based on this belief, I also do not believe that anybody can transition between biological sexes – since I believe nobody can change their biological sex. Therefore, no “trans” person exists, since nobody can transition between sexes.
All people can do is take cross-sex hormones, have cosmetic surgeries and dress differently – but they remain the same biological sex they were born as.
It is truly and factually wrong for courts to allow people to change their sex from M to F or F to M on their birth certificates, passports or driver’s licenses. I believe this will all get straightened out in the next decade or so – as the mania is already receding, and we will be back to what I consider to be “normal”.
Interesting topic.
Steve,
I grant that there is little to disagree with in this Lucia’s first post. The topic is interesting because of the importance our culture has given the transgender issue in recent times. I think Lucia does well to try to nail down what sex means from the get go, and establish that sex cannot in fact be changed.
I’ve had a heck of a weekend rescuing a kitten from Jacksonville FL today and yesterday, and the fun isn’t over yet. My dog likes the kitten but is a little too fascinated with it for my comfort. One of my other cats actively dislikes the little one. Good times.. I mention this because I’m not feeling particularly sharp tonight. Maybe I’ll have better commentary tomorrow.
RickA,
Using my definition this is correct.
Using the gamete definition, installing new gonads would be required. As far as I am aware, this is not done. No one has installed ovaries or testes in people.
This is an attempt to change phenotype— the appearance of the body and the sex organs.
Unless it is to actually correct someone whose sex was misidentified, allowing a change would be permitting an inaccuracy. Peoples sex is not merely what they “think” they are. It is defined by the type of gametes they create.
Misidentificaiton is rare– and has nothing to do with what one thinks. It has to do with someone actually misdiagosing whether someones gonads are testes or ova.
I might be open to countries including a second category on things like passports and driver licenses. They could have both sex and gender. Then a document could correctly list sex, and also list how they believe they present themselves. I believe trans advocates probably do not want this. But it might prevent problems when a person who has undergone lots of surgery and hormone treatment presents themselves at immigration. Having both categories would allow those inspecting passport or drivers license to say, “Ok. Sex is male, but it makes sense they look like a woman.” (Or they person looking at the document might think … still looks like a guy. But… whatever.)
Lucia,
Oh, I’m sure your correct. It is sex that is assigned at birth. The distinction I was reaching for was.. probably a dumb one actually. That nobody thinks actual sex is assigned. The legal category ‘male’ or ‘female’ is assigned.
[Edit: As far as I am aware, it is undisputed. There is almost certainly some fool somewhere who would dispute it, but generally speaking I’m not sure it’s a ‘thing’.]
I guess I was trying to say, what you say here in this paragraph is undisputed. What is meant is not that a biological attribute is assigned but rather a legal categorization.
[I don’t think anyone really disputes this anyway. I could be wrong as always.]
Lucia. Mark,
My children were all born in Pennsylvania or in Brazil. Their birth certificates all say either ‘male’ or ‘female’. I was there, and I can confirm those gender ‘assignments’ were in fact correct based on my observations.
I think the focus on how people ‘feel’ about their gender is both 1) strange, and 2) mostly irrelevant. 99.99% of people are either generically male (XY) or genetically female (XX).
IMHO, this is the world’s least interesting subject.
Mark–
Fair enough. I hadn’t thought of that. You are coorect: a legal category is assigned.
There are very few differences in legal rights these days– but some still exist. So that is an important distinction. Legal category can be different from biological sex. The intention is to make them match.
I guess with respect to RickA saying it should not be possible to change the legal category, I would say that it should only be possible if the biological category was incorrectly diagnosed and the legal category does not match the biological category. I think you should be allowed to correct the legal category to match your biological category. I think you should not be allowed to change it to no longer match your biological category.
SteveF
Look at the certificate. Does the certificate say “sex” or “gender”. The certificates in Mass, FL,Illinois, CA and Penn say “sex”. The word gender almost certainly does not appear on a PENN birth certificates. Consequently, it was not assigned, guessed at or anything at the time. The person filling it out indicated sex— because that’s the word on the birth certificate.
I bet the word on the Brazilian birth certificate is also “sex”– but I can’t find examples. google sends me to cites offering to translate the birth certificate.
That’s fine. But I think this is a pretty live political issue. People discuss legislation, rule making and other things. Consequently, I like discussion of the subject to clarify what policies should be, what language should be used, and what claims are being made. So I am obviously launching a discussion.
I agree.
The word on the Brazilian passport is “sexo” which is sex.
https://www.fickeymartinezlaw.com/immigration/adjustment-of-status/brazilian-birth-certificate-for-us-immigration-purposes
lucia wrote: “In my view, it’s important to distinguish sex from gender. It is especially important if we eventually want to discuss legal rights, accomodations and so on.”
I agree. Conflating the two uses of gender is used to cause all sorts of malignant mischief, such as claiming that Title IX applies to gender identity rather than biological sex.
Title IX literally says “sex”, not gender.
Claiming that sex is the same thing as gender is what can cause a person to interpret this clause as extend to something that is not sex. So it is the misuse of the term gender that is the problem. Sex is a specific thing and it is well defined. Title IX is excluding on the basis of sex that is made illegal.
At the time of writing, sex certainly meant biological sex– as I am using it. It did not mean something else. It most certainly was not intended that someone could legally favor biological males who adopt the role of female over biological females and then claim favoring the biological males is not discrimination on the basis of sex because both are female.
lucia MikeM ” It varies. People often use “gender” as a synonym for biological sex”
“Yes. I consider this an error. It’s also something that can lead to mistakes in thinking when discussing legal issues, rights, access to things like bathrooms.
“In my view, it’s important to distinguish sex from gender. It is especially important if we eventually want to discuss legal rights, accomodations and so on.”
–
As I recall we did all discuss this topic in the not so distant past with a similar lack of agreement.
–
It is a question of semantics and who gets to choose whom is right.
–
Personally I think the words sex and gender are for all intents and purposes completely interchangeable and mean the same thing to all people exposed to these words in a conversation.
–
It intrigues me as to why it is an issue, and the motivations for making it so, which must be worthy of consideration.
Multiple concepts.
Is gender only just a role?
Is sex just a role also?
–
If a man acts as playing a girl in a play or real life what is their gender/sex?
No-one would seriously suggest that because the actor is playing a feminine role that his gender or sex has changed, would they?
The role in acting or life, the behaviour exhibited in that situation is not real, it is staged.
The true gender or sex of said person is known to all [except for the very rare genetic mistakes].
In all cases I would say that the sex [role] being played by that actor is different from the gender [sex] of that actor.
A long time ago, Jim and I were shopping for trees. We discovered we could order male ash trees — as opposed to female trees. Of course, “male” was what we call the tree’s sex, which is biological. It was not the tree’s gender, which would be role.
–
So in terms of the role the tree is playing in reproduction based on its gametes you have still chosen a tree of male gender.
You could plant a row of them and call them female oak trees and everyone would believe you [you have given them a different sex/gender] .
Some plants are capable of self pollination.
Getting pumpkins to fertilize can involve taking a male flower and using it to transfer the gametes to the female flower I think.
Lucia ” Jim and I were shopping for trees. We discovered we could order male ash trees — as opposed to female trees. Of course, “male” was what we call the tree’s sex, which is biological. It was not the tree’s gender, which would be role.”
–
So in terms of the role the tree is playing in reproduction based on its gametes you have still chosen a tree of male gender [sex].
You could plant a row of them and call them female oak trees and everyone would believe you but all you have done is misascribed their gender [sex].
–
The trees are not playing a role, bur they can have an innate gender [ Some trees of course can be a lot more fluid in their gender naturally, unlike humans]
Lucia said she was going to open a separate thread to talk about gender so I was saving this for that thread but it seems appropriate to drop it in here now.
In one of Heinlein’s novels (I think it was Time Enough for Love, he (or rather, his protagonist, Lazarus Long) separated sex (biological) from gender (sexual behavior). He posited 6 genders: males attracted to females, females attracted to males, males attracted to males, females attracted to females, omnisexuals (i.e., males or females who didn’t care who — or maybe what today — they had sex with), and asexuals.
I’m in line with Lucia and I think most of you: I don’t care how someone wants to dress or act (although I think they should know and understand that doesn’t mean they can assume acceptance by everyone else) but there is a difference in biology — particularly in athletic competition.
Athletic competitions have the right to restrict competitors to categories that include age and biological sex. This really isn’t any different from a private club enforcing a dress code — you may feel casual but that doesn’t entitle you to use the formal dining room in torn jeans and a dirty tee shirt.
I’m sure I read that when I was in highschool. Roman Catholic all girl high school. As I’m an adult, I’m pretty sure my mother has no clue what sorts of things Heinlein wrote about!!
I don’t remember Heinlein haveing a list of genders– but I would have read it so long ago. If he did create that list, what Heinlein listed as genders in 1973 would now be called “sexual orientations”. Sociology, psychology and gender studies do not use “gender” to mean “sexual behavior”.
Do you have a quote or something to show he used gender for sexual behavior.
I couldn’t enter this discussion without knowing some numbers.
So, based on Lucia’s wording:
“underlying gamete potential cannot be diagnosed unambiguously based on external genitalia”
I ask a few smart people I know how rare that was:
Google Gemini:
“The frequency of births where the external genitalia are noticeably ambiguous is estimated to be in the range of: About 1 in 1,500 to 1 in 4,500 live births (or 0.02% to 0.07%)”
ChatGBT:
“Clinically significant DSDs (those where external genitalia are ambiguous enough to prompt medical evaluation at birth) occur in about 1 in 4,500 to 1 in 5,500 births (0.02%).”
Derek H:
“individuals with actual XXY or XYY chromosomal pairings happen about 1 in 80,000 or 100,000 times.”
So, this medical problem happens in very rare circumstances. I feel sad for them. I imagine many of them are confused, bitter, just like people with any rare disease.
But I don’t think we should force society to disrupt their norms to accommodate these people’s fantasies.
I think you should be talking about another Heinlein book, actually…
American Heritage Dictionary:
Gender – Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex.
My daughter’s birth certificate says: “do sexo feminino”, which translates to “of the feminine sex”.
The words have been used interchangeably until very recently.
Another good science fiction book which is pertinent is A Civil Campaign by Lois McMaster Bujold. A character undergoes a sex change which involves changing every cell in their body, as well as growing artificial organs. Obviously very futuristic and speculative – but I think it relates to the discussion. In addition, this is an excellent book series (if you like military scifi). I laugh out loud at the dinner party scene every time I read this book. The dialog is really good. Highly recommended.
russell,
Yes. Actual XXY and XYY are very rare. So is true hermaphroditism.
“Clinically significant DSDs” is very rare.
For the most part, the political pressure to accept “transgenderism” does not spring from people with DSDs or odd chromosome issues. It springs from people whose biological sex was correctly specified at birth but who describe their situation as “identify” as the sex that does not match their biological sex.
SteveF,
Fair enough. But if we are going to compete dictionaries.
This is oxford.
With reference to “social or cultural” makes it not biological. This is, like it or not increasingly the definition.
This is merriam webster
They also give history.
I guess I’ll have to say “When I and many use gender, we mean….”
Here, I am going to be very clear about gender vs. sex because it is better to have two words. Two words emphasizes that people who claim to have switched genders have not switched biological sex. Otherwise, having two meanings for gender — and using it that way– is the situation that can do things like make people decide that Title IX applies to gender– with gender meaning a psycho-social condition, not biological sex. Title IX uses the word sex, as do our identification documents. Using gender to mean biological sex is also the path to persuading people that the “F” or “M” on their birth certificates indicates their psycho-social identification and so can mis-match their biological sex.
Thomas —
Are you talking about “I Will Fear No Evil” or “Stranger in a Strange Land”? “I Will Fear No Evil” was … weird … but it envisioned a old man’s brain being implanted in a young (brain dead) woman’s body. It was intriguing in asking how much of our behavior is coded in our body itself.
Lucia —
My memory may be scrambled. I could have sworn the discussion of six sexual behaviors had referred to them as genders but I did a simple word search in “Time Enough For Love” on “gender” and “sexes” and came up with zilch. I’ll have to find time to locate the discussion — I thought it was Lazarus to Dora but maybe it was in a different novel.
Regardless, I do agree that biological sex, sexual behavior, and gender identity are linked but separate issues. I am not a proponent of Title IX but it was passed by a majority of Congress and signed by the President so is law. I think Title IX was very clearly directed at biological sex differences, not gender identity.
The activists could get similar recognition for gender identity if they can successfully pass the legislative process but I am against redefining the language to get what they want by judicial or administrative fiat (which is what activists have been doing for the last 50 years).
We could have a rather dry, abstract discussion about the considerations behind choosing ‘good’ definitions, whatever we might decide we mean by ‘good’ in this context. I have not given this matter a ton of prior thought.
Spur of the moment thinking, I’d sort of like my definitions to be ‘clean’, that is to say, I’d like to have categories that don’t have a ton of arbitrary exceptions. I’d like my definitions to be useful and relevant and to identify ‘conceptually essential’ attributes. Of course, what is ‘conceptually essential’ or even ‘conceptually important’ depends on one’s conceptual needs and domain of thought I guess.
It’s quite likely I am post-hoc rationalizing because I would like to define sex as a strict function of gametes for many other downstream reasons. It would be convenient in a lot of ways. To some extent convenience should play a role in our selection of definitions in that they should facilitate clear thought. Some of the ways in which it would be convenient for me are not legitimate justifications IMO unfortunately.
If you ask an AI like Gemini, it would politely suggest that this idea is controversial, and that there are competing definitions of sex. Chiefly:
Is there upside to complicating the defining criteria? It’s worth thinking about. My initial decision criteria is utility, BTW. Does it help us in some real way to define it one way or the other. I don’t mean ‘helping justify my ideological position’ that’s not what I’m talking about. I mean, help us think clearly and quickly and correctly about reality, help us communicate relevant stuff without necessitating a lot of extra qualifiers and exceptions and so on. My initial position is, I don’t see what the extra stuff buys me. But I need to think about it I guess.
I think definitions surrounding sex ought to facilitate thinking clearly about reproduction, since sex belongs conceptually to this category – one of the ways living things procreate. The whole complex of ideas that relate to reproduction (evolution, survival of the fittest, social structures that facilitate survival of primates, etc) should be facilitated rather than impeded by whatever defining criteria we accept, IMO.
Yeah. I remember thinking Heinlein was a little pervy. Heh. I haven’t thought of the story ‘I will fear no evil’ in darn near 30 years now.
While all this discussion of sex determination by gamites and XY and XX may be technically accurate, it leaves me completely cold.
For me sex is determined by the plumbing you have carried around in your shorts since birth, and nothing else. I believe this is the determining factor for the vast majority of people.
Mark Bofill
Issues:
1. Genetic (Chromosomal) Sex The main problem with this is the definition fails to define some people. The difficulty is that, though rare, XXY , XYY, XO and XXX exist. By the “gonad” definition, the ones that include the “Y” are male. So merely having a Y seems enough for the genetic chromosomal sex to be gonadal males. The ones that do not have a Y are gonadal females. The gonadal definition identifies the sex of some people who would otherwise be unidentified and does so without changing recognition of anything else. This is useful in ways other than rhetorical spats about whether human variation means more than 2 sexes or genders exist.
The gonadal definition also assigns sex to people mosaic karyotupes or other things that make them biological hermaphrodites.
So the genetic definition defines some people and does not define others. To the extent it defines them, the gonadal and chromosomal sex agree who is which.
Another problem with chromosomal sex is that the XY, XX explanation doesn’t apply to all species. Other possibilities for species are XZ, ZW, XO. So, gonadal sex manages to define a larger set of male/female in humans — while never disagreeing with chromosomal identification, and also encompasses plants, animals and fungi.
2. Gonadal Sex. Obviously, I wrote about this post. It is the rule biologists apply when they are identifying sex in any species. It is uninfluenced by any psycho-social ideas or how people treated. This is why I think it is the right one for biological sex. I think it is the correct one for sex– which is the word that focuses on biological sex. Even if it might at one point have been used for what I am going o say “gender” means, more and more– since the 50s– the division is “sex” is biological, gender is “psycho-social”.
More later. Jim wants help shampoing the cat.
Lucia,
Good catch! I’d forgotten that if I ever knew it. It’s only X’s and Y’s for humans, but not for all living things.
[And:
…
I’ll think about this, thank you. It speaks directly to what I was trying to consider.]
Mark- con’t
Note since this is based on the hormones gonads produce, to the extent it does identify individuals, it the identification is the same as for gonadal sex. It leaves people out if their gonads “don’t work”.
One of your objections is the possibility of picking the gonadal definition for rhetorical purposes. But I don’t think that’s the reason for the choice because (a) it agrees with the other two definitions in cases where the other two definition identify a gender, (b) it extends the definition where the other two fail to identify and (c) it happens to extend the definition to the other anisogamous animals, plants and fungi.
First: this has the dificulty of not extending to other anisogamous animals, plants or fungi. Maybe some don’t care. But it is a feature.
Second: ocourse in normal development of humans, if you use phenotypic sex, these end up matching gonadal sex when someone is born.
But like definitions 1 and 3, this definition leaves the sex of some humans literally undefined. For example, if someone has a no penis or scrotum, does have no epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicles, and prostate, an undescended testes and does not have a uterus, and fallopian tubes, their sex is left undefined. The gonadal definition defines them provided they either have testes or ovaries. Streak ovaries are still ovaries. Undescended testes are still testies.
Notably: Current “sex/gender reassignment” surgery does not add testes of ovaries. Also, they dont’ add “epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicles, and prostate” or “uterus, fallopian tubes”. So under this definition, people who have the surgery to change external features of their phenotype at best become “undefined”.
As we know, from a medical stand point, people who undergo these surgeries all require constant medical intervention to maintain the hormonal status of their desired gender/sex. They cannot do so on their own.
In the end: gonadal sex merely extends recognition to people who are “unidentified” by chromosomal and hormonal sex. That strikes me as more than a rhetorical advantage it is a broader definition that otherwise agrees with the other two.
In normal development, gonadal sex simply agrees with the phenotypic one. Like some others, at least as under the definition you posted, lots of people get left out. Missing a vas deference but have a penis? You have no biological sex! I don’t like definitions that leave people out as the “definition”. In abnormal development, people also have no sex. They aren’t male, but they also aren’t female.
One of your objections is that one shouldn’t pick based on rhetoric. As far as “rhetoric” in arguments about “trans”, adopting phenotypic sex as the “real meaning” doesn’t get people who dislike gonadal sex anywhere. After all: those say you are not a woman if you don’t have ovaries or fallopian tubes. Women’s sports are for women. So unless they change the definition of phenotypic sex, no one would make the choice between gonadal sex and phenotypic as “biological”, because.
So I think gonadal sex has quite a few non-rhetorically motivated advantages over the other three definitions. That’s why biologists use it for… trees, fungi, snakes, birds and so on. Seems to me we might as well use the same system to define “biological sex” for people.
Lucia,
I think I’m pretty well sold on this. It’s hard to see how that’s going to lead me off into the weeds ahead of time anyways.
[Cross posted, but I see nothing objectionable about your last comment either.]
Mark,
I agree that “sex” should be linked to “sexual reproduction”.
This btw, is chatGPT. Granted, it’s talking to me. I have discussed whether it can be “buffaloed” with it. It claims that it can be nudged…. but not to the extent of being actually inaccurate.
Whatever… I think this summary is pretty good on the choice.
Comparing Four Definitions of Biological Sex
1. Chromosomal (Genetic) Sex
2. Hormonal Sex
3. Gonadal Sex
4. Phenotypic (Anatomical) Sex
Why gametes are the most robust definition
By the way, I asked chatGPT about maintenance of sex reassignment surgery. I know to the extent exogenous hormones are given, these need to be provided forever.
Now: TRIGGER WARNING… I wondered about false vaginas. I have pierced ears… and when you first get them pierced, you need to keep the wound open or it will close up. (Handy if the pierce in a ridiculous place.) . I knew you had to do this with a false vagina. ChatGPT confirms you do.
With ear piercings, after the wound closes you are left with pierced ears. Mine remain pierced even if I never wear earrings.
Is this the same with false vaginas? Nope. Nope. You have to keep inserting things. Frequent penetrative sex evidently works… but if you don’t get it, you need to make sure you keep it open.
So: unlike vaginas in biological females, these neovaginas need lifetime maintenance. This is similar to the constant need for exogenous hormones.
We could debate how the need to exert constant effort to maintain your phenotype affects whether you “are” the sex that matches the phenotype. But there is a difference between not needing to maintain and needing to maintain.
I know. I need to color my roots this weekend. Such a b*tch.
Lucia (and everyone),
Regarding this,
This causes me to want to advertise my disclaimer as well:
Assume and take for granted that I discuss pretty much everything with Gemini. It’s not exactly true, but it’s true enough. If I am interested in what I am talking about with you I’m probably also talking to Gemini about it. I *do* disagree with Gemini periodically, although usually not about the basics of much.
Mark,
Part of this post is to see how it flies. I mean… you guys can find flaws or omissions. For example, SteveF has definitely convinced me that gender is sometimes used as synonymous with sex. I mean.. dictionary? yeah. If it’s in there, I’m not going to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Now, I still think in discussions of social issues , legal or human rights issues surrounding sex and gender it is better to have distinct words. There are lots of possible issues to discuss. It is clearer, cleaner and leads to better thinking of what one means. But SteveF showing me the dictionary will influence my writing on what is “gender”, which I deferred. 🙂
hmm. Not sure that is the same thing. Maybe.
See – both men and women age and similar things happen to them physically. But it doesn’t imply anything about their sex. At least I don’t think it does. Eventually women age out of being able to bear children, men essentially never age out of being able to donate sperm. … I don’t think aging out of being able to bear children means one’s sex changes though.
I’m not sure the effort to maintain phenotype has a lot to do with anything. Social perceptions is all, probably more gender related than sex related? Not sure.
[Cross post again. Sure! I like hearing what people here think about things. Sometimes they surprise me, which is usually good.]
Mark
I learned this reading social media “pissing contents” elsewhere….
I’m pretty sure when I read it, it was someone claiming that gender is very complicated… so you can’t use XY, XX because then… animals. And so we must conclude there are a zillion possible sexes.
But biologists don’t conclude there are a zillion possible sexes based on the fact that some animals are XZ. They use gametes. Humans are s subset of that.
Yes, we don’t want to chose “based on” rhetoric. But reading the rhetoric and looking into it makes arguments broader, more general and sharper. The existance of XZ does not mean there are a zillion sexes or that sex is “more complicated” . Or at least it’s not “more complicated” in terms of sex identificatiotns of humans or animals. The answer is simply: biologists don’t really use XY,XX as the criterion. They use the existance of organs with the potential to produce gametes. In humans, that’s ovaries and testes.
Mark
It’s not. It’s sort of a joke.
However, a feature you maintain through constant effort is somewhat different than one you don’t. 🙂
I see. In which case I will mention that I didn’t know neovaginas needed to be maintained by regular penetration and stretching, and now that I do know, I may try out the phrase ‘go do maintenance on your neovagina’ the next time I have the urge to tell somebody to go f*ck themselves. :>
Nobody would get it in my neck of the woods. Needlessly complicated and obscure. Curses and expletive dismissals have to be to the point, similar to words with clear definitions as mentioned previously.
Alright, I’ll quit screwing around and get back to work now.
I’ll take “Things I Never Wanted to Know” for $1000, Alex …
Still, useful to know that for the online debates about whether trans-women are women.
Sometimes, we have to keep in mind what we are using a word for when defining or interpreting it — and this goes back to my objection to the way some people use language. I was reminded of this when I saw a Reddit post the other day questioning the definition they’d run across for “Moment of Inertia”. The poster was thinking along the same lines I was — the definition used in physics — while the text he was consulting was using an engineering definition (also called the area moment of inertia or moment of area by other sources).
I am not thinking and don’t think I should have to be thinking about exotic flora and fauna when trying to classify humans for an athletic event or use of a lavatory.
I don’t think women are going to ask for a genetic test if someone in the women’s lavatory whips an appendage out and urinates while standing. Few people in either lavatory is going to much care if someone goes directly to a stall and closes the door. A lot of guys are going to be annoyed if they are at a urinal and someone passes by in a skirt or dress sporting what appear to be boobs (some guys will be … interested …).
On the lavatory issue, I’m fine with just shifting to single-person stalls with maybe a common washing area. For guys, urinals are more space-efficient but single-person stalls with doors are easier administratively.
For athletic events, I do think we have to resort to chromosomal tests. It’s just not fair (and indeed is dangerous in some sports) to pit women against someone who has a male musculature and/or physical build.
Derek H,
I gave you a trigger warning!!
DerekH
Women already have these. However, if the issue is concern that someone largish, strongish and perhaps violent would take advantage of the relative privacy of a bathroom to assault women, single person stalls doesn’t address the issue. The modesty aspect of privacy isn’t the only feature of privacy that matters when addressing the “toilet/locker room” issue particularly for the physically weaker on average sex.
Mad honey is a book by Jodi Picoukt which I have refused to read at the moment only .
The other half did it for her book club recently.
Quite relevant to some of the gender sex discussion though it is sort of a crime novel.
Are gender and sex the same word, I presume this means synonyms and freely interchangeable or some other sort of word meaning they share a common definition but can also be used separately and distinctly to mean different things?
/
This, like it or not , is the basic question here.
The answer in my opinion is quite clearly no.
/
Many people want to specify a distinction to be able to use gender as a surrogate word for role playing sex.
That then gives legitimacy to the idea that one can then change one’s gender simply by saying so.
/
There is a large obvious flaw here in that the idea worldwide seems perfect on the surface and is maddeningly difficult to dispute because it allows one to pretend a fictitious statement is real and then act in that belief.
/
My advice would be to stop pandering to such misguided thinking and instead use a term as Lucia has described,
I.e. Role play sex or role playing gender or both interchangeably to describe this role of misguided, mischievous or malignant characters or actors outside of their sex/ gender (choose either term as they have been are and will be identical in meaning )
What gender does a ghost have and why?
Serious question.
About like does the soul have a sex or gender and if so why so?
Why dies a Muslim male soul get 20 virgins?
Do virgins have souls or a gender, presumably xx,and if so why would they need a gender.
How does one tell with a ghost or a soul how the X chromosome can also effect and give rise (sorry unintended pun) to both the behaviour of the soul and the activity of that soul after death?
/
Theology of cause could be considered by some heretics as misguided thinking but it certainly, if it exists, upsets the apple cart as gender if a soul would be ascribed at birth whee applicable.
The bathroom issue is about protecting little girls and young ladies. What traumatizes old women is less important to me.
Russell,
If assaults happen, we don’t want that happening to old ladies either. But yes, little girls and young ladies being assaulted would be worse than old ladies having to endure seeing things they’ve all seen before.
Russell,
By they way, the issue of assaults isn’t limited or even primarily a concern the male->female transgenders would use access to private ares. It also includes males who might pretend to be transgender to get access to private areas. Some men who are not transgender have been known to be less than straightforward and lie to get something.
Lucia,
It’s not only physical assaults of little girls and young ladies that we need to be afraid about. Just the physical trauma of a little one being alone in a room with one of these freaks is abhorrent.
Russell,
You seem to be suggesting old women being assaulted is ok? Surely you don’tmean that? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be tapdancing pretty close to that.
I think anyone being assaulted– male or female, young or old is something to be concerned about.
I brought up physical assaults because DerekH suggested all closed stall and no urinals would be ok with him. Presumably, that suggest he thinks this is pure privacy issue. As in “I don’t want to see your junk and I don’t want you to watch me.” But for smaller weaker people assault when you are end up in a private area with no witnesses and no possible protector is an issue. This can’t be solved by having a number of private stalls inside a larger area.
No one should be assaulted. I don’t know why you are unconcerned with possible physical assaults of older women. Are you aware that also happens? Inconceivable I know. Old ladies aren’t the main target of sexual predators, but they do get assaulted.
If you protect the young ones, the old ones will be protected to.
Russell,
Sure. But the way you say it, you literally seems to be saying “who cares about the old ones?”
And, as far as extending protecion to the “less deserving”: if you protect the old ones, you’ll protect the young ones too. So that’s hardly a reason to say we don’t give a hoot about whether or not old ones get protected.
Yes: protecting the old from violence often protects the young. Protecting the young often protects the young. But saying we should only care about protecting one category seems a bit… odd…. That is, it’s odd unless you can explain why you shouldn’t care about the category you don’t intend to protect. And no, the fact that they might be protected as a side effect does not justify saying you don’t care.
If old ladies being assaulted is bad it’s bad. I think you should also care about that. And guess what? One of the side effects is young girls and women may be protected too.
I saw (and see) nothing wrong with what Russell said. Yes, it can be parsed to mean something else. But I thought it was clear enough. And to call the alternate interpretation ungenerous would be an understatement.
MikeM,
It sure sounds to me like he thinks people shouldn’t care if I get assaulted. In fact, it sounds pretty clear he’s saying that. Only young women count. Maybe I should be happy that the side effect of protecting young women is that the chances I will be assaulted is lower. But he said what he thinks rules should be about:
I mean…seriously, does he mean old women being assaulted is less important to him? He actually said that.
Oh? Less generous? He’s pretty much doubled down
Protecting me is a side effect. I guess I should be pleased to be protected as a side effect? Whatever. I don’t think I’m being ungenerous. I think he’s saying we shouldn’t consider weaker, older women when making the rules. Oh… but as a side effect we might be protected. Or… maybe he’s saying something else. If so he can say, “Oh. Yeah. I think considering protecting older women is important too.” Not just, “well… it would be a side effect.”
Lucia,
I agree with you. I didn’t react because I didn’t see the point. Either Russell meant his comment sincerely, in which case he should go perform maintenance on his neovagina, or he didn’t, which means he was just making noise, trying to get a rise out of anyone he could, also in which case he should go perform maintenance on his neovagina. But I get the sense you don’t love it when I squabble with Russell, so even more reason to ignore it.
Yet it seems to bother you when he trolls you. I’m sorry about that!
Mark,
I don’t think Russell intends to troll me. I think he really, honestly doesn’t grasp that what it sounds like he is saying that people like me— i.e. “old ladies” don’t matter- – and we should be content that we get protected as a side effect.
He can either clarify that that’s not what he meant nor is it what he thinks. Or he can let us know that’s precisely what he thinks and he can explain why it’s not a big deal if I get assaulted..
It’s not hard for him to say “that’s not what I meant.”
Why would you think that?
Mark,
Because I honestly don’t think he’s trying to troll me. Maybe I’m wrong and he thinks my safety doesn’t count. Maybe he thinks when we make rules we should not think about the safety of people like lucia, because rules should be ‘about’ the safety of young, nubile, impressionable girls, and not about older women.
I honestly doubt that. But if that’s the case, he can say so directly and explain why.
If he thins that he can just say, “No lucia. The possibility that a biological man might take advantage of rule allowing men in ladies toilets so he can follow you, a small, weak, old woman , into to the toilet to assault you, and steal your purse is not really all that important. Rules should really be a bout protecting young women. Not you. ‘Cuz you are old. We don’t need rules to protect you.
I honestly don’t believe he thinks that. And I don’t think he is intentionally trolling. So I think he doesn’t grasp the implication f what he is saying,
Shrug. As you please.
Lucia,
Once again you are accusing me of thinking God awful things that I didn’t say. It’s a pattern with you. You twist my words into me thinking horrible thoughts. I don’t think you act in good faith when you go after me.
Where did I say this:
“It sure sounds to me like he thinks people shouldn’t care if I get assaulted. In fact, it sounds pretty clear he’s saying that.”
Or this:
“he is saying that people like me— i.e. “old ladies” don’t matter-”
I said nothing of the kind.
Here is everything I said:
“The bathroom issue is about protecting little girls and young ladies. What traumatizes old women is less important to me.”
And:
“It’s not only physical assaults of little girls and young ladies that we need to be afraid about. Just the physical trauma of a little one being alone in a room with one of these freaks is abhorrent.”
And:
“If you protect the young ones, the old ones will be protected too.”
Those are the entirety of my comments on the matter.
And I stand by every word.
Russell,
If you think I twisted your words, perhaps you can visit chatGPT or any language tool and ask this. Don’t tell it you wrote it– just ask as a third party.
After I asked, I responded to it and wrote:
You can present that to chatGPT and see what it has to say about that.
I’m not accusing anyone of bad intent here — I’m just looking at what the words literally say and how they read.
Perhaps it’s my half century of being a parent and a grandparent that makes me particularly acute to protecting young people.
If I come to a fork in the path, and the left side leads to an old woman about to tumble off into the abyss, and the right side needs to a little girl about to tumble off into the abyss, I take the right side and save the little girl, every time.
Does that mean I value your life less than the little girl’s life? Yes, it does. Deal with it.
Yeah. Perhaps if you were a young girl I’d care more about how Lucia treats you.
She is our hostess, and you are being rude to her. You ought to think that through.
Russell,
My objection is not that you are protective of young people. I am too.
I can perfectly well deal with you not valuing my life and safety. I’m not the center of the universe.
But don’t claim I twisted your words. I absolutely did no such thing. In fact, I interpreted what you wrote to mean precisely what you said and now you tell us it is precisely what you mean.
I was indeed thinking more of the privacy issues than physical assaults but I would contend that a common washing area with more traffic (i.e., men and women) with visibility of the doors to the single-use facilities would tend to deter assaults.
Most guys I know are going to intervene if they can see a man getting physical with a woman. A man pretending to be a woman can get away with this in a women’s only restroom because he’s not visible to any but the women once he’s behind the door and then he likely is waiting for the restroom to empty out.
In truth, I don’t see an easy answer because implementing this would require expensive reconfiguration and suck up valuable real estate which really wouldn’t be necessary if it wasn’t for the pretenders. Society as a whole shouldn’t have to pay the price for a tiny fraction of 1 percent of people who decide to play at something they aren’t.
Derek,
I am often entirely alone in multi-stall rest rooms in diners, shopping malls and other places. At least in the US, public toilets tend to be abundant. I’d say shopping malls, restrooms are also often not within shouting distance of anyone. In contrast, airport ones are usually within shouting difference and crowded. Some other public restrooms vary in crowding, particular a different hours of the day.
Yes. Or he follows her in knowing it’s not unlikely the restroom will be otherwise empty. And if it’s not empty, well no harm to him.
I don’t think this would be happening constantly. And of course, it could happen even if the rule said absolutely no biological men. But it potentially gives cover to predators.
BTW: There was an incident at University of Illinois while I was a graduate student where a man followed a woman back from bars. She entered the Mechanical engineering building and went into the ladies bathroom. He followed her, entered the restroom and raped her. It was late. The building was nearly empty, though graduate students may have been in their offices. Those offices were located quite a distance away from that particular bathroom which was close to the faculty offices.
This assault had nothing to do with transgender issues. But it does illustrate that predators do plan things and take advantage of situations.
The university changed their lock policy after that. Other than the Unions– which had a lot of traffic– buildings were lock after a certain hour. We graduate students were issued keys.
One thing I had become very aware of as an undergraduate in Chicago was that being somewhere where almost no one is around is generally much more dangerous than being in a crowd. Predators know you are more vulnerable when no one is present to intervene. That’s true regardless of the sex or age of the victim.
Predators are also more likely to select and follow a victim who they deem as weaker and unlikely to be able to defend themselves. That can be young ladies, it can be frail elderly people. In the case of this particular young lady, she’d been at happy hour, so she may have been somewhat inebriated. Yada, yada.
Which sort of harm the predator intends to commit may differ– sexual crimes are more likely to occur to the young. But then, sexual assaults are also likely to occur on things like dates or in homes. Often, these permit relative privacy for the assailant.
Still: I think it’s worth recognizing that possible issues in semi-private areas like bathrooms or locker rooms includes both modesty/privacy and the potential for physical assault which includes both sexual and non sexual cases of assault. The modesty/privacy issue is almost certainly the more frequent issue. But the potential for assault is an issue.
I think it’s important to protect both young and old from assault. I also think it’s important to protect both men and women– but of course if the issue allowing men in private women’s spaces, the potential is that women will be at greater risk of assault.
I think that lucia and Russell are both being overly prickly. Lucia sometimes over interprets things. In this case, that led her to take offense at Russell’s words. Russell then took offense at the suggestion that he meant something awful. Neither is being generous in interpreting the other’s words. And now both are digging in on their misinterpretations. Sigh.
Mike,
This addition was superfluous. It related to no idea under discussion. Indeed, Russell later admits as much:
So why go there in the first place? Answer: To provoke a response. Just attention seeking.
More of the same here:
I mean – Lucia is good with this, therefore I don’t actually object. But I will only cooperate a short ways in pretending that I don’t think this is what’s going on.
MikeM
If you think this, I suggest you ask ChatGPT the question I suggested in my post “November 4, 2025 at 12:30 am “.
“Something awful”? I suggested he had said something specific. I didn’t say that view was “awful”. I also said I didn’t believe he thought that– I thought he had been clumsy.
You suggested I’m being ungenerous and now I that I ‘over interpreted’. But I did not “over interpret” what he said. ChatGPT interprets what Russel said to mean what I interpreted it to mean. I invited Russel to go check at ChatGPT. In his next comment after my invitation, Russel confirmed he actually believes what I thought his words meant. My guess is ChatGPT told him he said precisely what I interpreted him to say. Because that’s what it told me.
Whether the thing Russell said and believes is “awful” is your assessment. I merely responded to and engaged what he said.
Now, am I prickly about people telling me I twisted their words when I did not? Or claiming their post do not mean what they literally mean? Yes. That bugs me.
It turns said I interpreted him to say. He has confirmed that he believes precisely what I said he meant. Shrug.
Derek, your post:
“ Society as a whole shouldn’t have to pay the price for a tiny fraction of 1 percent of people who decide to play at something they aren’t.”
This is the most important thing said in this entire thread so far.
also….
Your idea of a common waiting room and private stalls has some merit I think. When my boys were little and were out with my wife, they refused to go to the ladies room and she didn’t wanna let them go to the men’s room alone. A waiting room where she could stand outside the stall would work. (and this was before all the transgender BS.)
A common, waiting room does not reduce the potential for assault.
The hall outside the stalls is always available for waiting. That’s open and totally public. A common, semi-private waiting room is just as private as the waiting area next to stalls in the ladies bathroom. This area can almost empty too. A larger person in such a common waiting room could take advantage of the privacy, grab someone, pull them into the stall and assault them. Making people wait in the hall would be safer.
Waiting in the public hall way is quite common when the toilets have only one toilet.
How to solve the possibility of assault in public toiles is not an easy issue. No solution is going to be perfect. But having a “common” waiting area where everyone — whether trans or not– can end up almost alone during light traffic periods is not safer than current public toilets. It only means that non-trans male predators don’t even need to pretend to be trans to follow women, girls or people into semi-private areas.
Mark Bofill wrote: “So why go there in the first place? Answer: To provoke a response. Just attention seeking.”
There are certainly many people on the internet who would do that. I can not recall Russell ever doing that, at least not on purpose.
lucia,
I categorically refuse to accept ChatGPT as an arbiter of how HUMANS interpret things. I’ll go further and say that I categorically refuse to accept ChatGPT as an arbiter of anything. To me, that amounts to saying “bow down before your lord, the infallible AI”. I refuse.
I well remember when a disagreement with a representative of a large organization (bank, airline, etc,) would often result in the apparatchik saying “the computer says …” as if that precluded any other possibility. Maddening. That went away when it became possible for the customer to respond (well, MY computer says …). I don’t want to go back to the 70’s.
AI’s can be a useful tool for research. They should never be regarded as the last word.
Mike m.
I get it. So then read what mark bofill wrote. He is a human.
And Russel himself confirms he thinks what I interpreted hi
As saying. It’s not just chatgpt
Hey hey, d’jya hear that? I’m human! Woohoo! I can’t wait to tell my doubters and critics. Not even ‘almost’ human or ‘practically’ human, nope. Without qualifier ‘human’.
😉
Mark,
You do consort with Gemini though. So,,,,,
Hey, there’s no takebacks. Human, you said human.
In a different aside, has anyone seen confirmation that either ChatGPT or Google Gemini have moved on from using Reddit and/or Wikipedia as sources for teaching their AI? I’m … suspicious … whenever anyone sources their information to either of those platforms.
I haven’t seen any information on what Grok is using to teach their AI and for the past couple of weeks, Grok seems to have transitioned to a Socratic method where it asks questions about my questions rather than actually answering. Of course, I’m using the free version on my iPad so maybe someone with a paid account has a different experience?
I’ve found that ChatGPT often uses Reddit appropriately. I’ve been fascinated by baldness cure claims and have asked about ingredients. It will say things like it can’t find those, but people on. Reddit speculate it contains whatever.
Based on that sort of thing I learn no one knows what’s on mystery potion X, but people have been guessing. It might also discuss if the guess might be remotely plausible.
I don’t think Reddit or Wikipedia is necessarily bad. It just depends what you are asking.
It’s also useful to say ‘wait a minute! That seems inconsistent.. and say why. ‘
The funny thing is it’s such a suck up. I’m sometimes tempted to advocate for something super ridiculous and read what it says.
Gemini is a little tight lipped about it when I ask. It tells me:
Can you provide a source for your claim that Gemini ever used Reddit or Wikipedia in the first place? I’m not saying I doubt this necessarily, but it’d be helpful to know where you are looking – this might enable me to find more stuff out I might be interested in knowing.
DerekH
On another thing about ChatGPT, it’s definitely not the final say on anything. But I think it’s. Useful neutral arbiter on stuff. And if you ask thing neutrally or invite counter arguments it will provide them. It may not come upper with a new useful idea, but at least you read some counter arguments and that is often helpful
Counter arguments o. Reddit are not a bad thing to read. You’d have a hard time finding hhem without ChatGPT or similar.
If grok is answering g questions with questions, I may need to add asking it stuff!
Mark,
ChatGPT definitely uses Reddit says so.
It can be fun discussing ChatGPT’s behavior with ChatGPT.
I’ve sometimes asked ‘ you seem to be doing ‘x’. Is that your programming?’ Or training — depending.
When you have certain conversations, it knows it reverts to repeating things because of overwhelming amounts of training . And it goes back to repeating things it analyzed and agreed do not make sense.
Gemini will admit to being trained on Wikipedia and Reddit (among other sources) as well if pressed.
Architecture is going to evolve. Granted there will be a lot of inertia to it. I’m not looking forward to when the women get to share bathrooms at sporting venues as men are used to not having excessive lines in comparison to the women. Gender neutral, and family bathrooms are already more common. It’s likely there’s going to be a shift to non-gendered bathrooms. Back in the 70s an intermediate school where I worked had the sinks in a common nook that fed into the bathrooms. I suspect something similar will be part of the end game with public restroom design in the future. I also think, thankfully, the gap between the doors will go away with a trend towards full doors.
Andrew, your post:
“Architecture is going to evolve.”
One of the things I like about the interstate restrooms in Florida (actually the only thing I like) is that there are no doors, and privacy is provided by baffles.
That way, mom could wait outside while the boys went in and she could listen to be sure they weren’t being accosted.
She also could listen to be sure they weren’t killing each other or dismantling the sink, which was far more likely to happen.
Andrew P
I agree architecture will evolve.
I just don’t want people to think a particular change will improve safety when it will not do so.
I don’t know if men always scan feet at the base of stalls when they enter an empty seeming bathroom. I do and have a lot time. I know if I were in a nearly empty “waiting room” in a public toilet, I would feel uncertain. If I could not scan for feet under the stalls, while waiting, I would be more worried about who or what is concealed inside the private toilet and what they might do when they come out. I would not be less worried. I don’t see how that situation could possibly increase the safety of young or old women. I don’t see how it could increase the safety of men or even boys.
I get that, perhaps, this arrangement of unisex waiting rooms and toilets might have solved Russel’s son’s concerns about using the “ladies” toilet when they were young. Because now there would be no “ladies” toilets. Everything is unisex and everyone uses it.
But the kid’s concern was probably not actually a safety concern. It’s more likely it was related to “Big boys and men use the men’s. I’m a big enough to get to use the men’s” concern. Wanting to be treated as more grown up is common in kids. But it doesn’t follow that changes to address kids need to be “more grown up” are going to result in greater safety for women.
To improve safety — or at least not degrade it– you need to think about what features actually make something unsafe.
Public toilets may not even be some place where assaults are likely. But as I mentioned– I scan under stall walls… when the room is nearly empty.
Lucia,
The interstate restrooms I mentioned still had men and women separated. They have both men’s and women’s rooms. They just didn’t have doors on the outside of the restrooms, just a big open hall with baffles to provide privacy.
Without the doors, my wife could wait by the vending machines and still hear what’s going on with the boys.
EDIT,
I think no outside doors is safer because anybody outside the room can hear what’s going on
Russell,
That sounds like the restrooms we already have at major airports. I didn’t imagine you meant “the hall” when you wrote “the waiting room” at November 4, 2025 at 10:17 am. But. Go figure. Must be me just not grasping that “waiting room” means “hall”. Oh, how my mind just twists your words ….
As for your plan to just continue to solve problems by have the same sorts of public bathrooms we already have, I hate to break it to you, but people can’t necessarily hear you if your mouth has been covered. Knowing this, women still bring their boys into these types of ladies rooms. So I don’t think they are all subscribing to your theory that they will “hear” the kid if he is grabbed by some man in the men’s bathroom. This arrangement doesn’t seem to address the problem of boys not wanting to use the girls restroom.
I still scan below the stalls when I use this sort of waiting room. And I don’t normally plant a guard outside the waiting room to hear my screams. I often shop or travel alone.
But at least it doesn’t increase harm to women the way having a common waiting room would.
The no door ladies’s room would also work for a dad taking his little girls to the bathroom. He could wait outside and monitor by listening.
For what it’s worth, I always try to have situational awareness in public places. It’s not just toilets, it includes parking lots, train stations etc. I know my safety could be further enhanced by never going any place alone and always having a second person stand outside to hear me scream if I were assaulted. But I don’t consider that much of a solution. Part of the problem is that would mean I can’t travel, shop or do much of anything alone.
Having small boys constantly supervised seems like a decent solution for small boys. But it doesn’t address safety of old women. ( But I’m I should just deal with the fact they’d save young women who might fall of a cliff and just let me fall off it! maybe we can turn that into some sort of trolley problem . . . Would you let 100 old woman be run over by the trolley to save one young woman? 1000? And what does this men for toilets?)
Lucia,
you probably already know about this..
I bought one of these for my daughter-in-law who does long distance running. she just attached it to a belt loop
“The Original Personal Safety Alarm for Womenn by Women– Loud Siren Birdie Sound, Strobe SOS LED Light, Be Safe with Personal Alarm– Self Defense Keychain for College Essentials (Aqua) https://a.co/d/0TdgSd3”
edit , the link is broken, it’s Amazon
We have strayed far afield, but I’ll come along.
Buy a gun for concealed carry. Seriously. You almost certainly will never have to use it. Just having it, just drawing it from its concealed location in a self defense situation is enough to deter attackers most of time.
This doesn’t solve for young girls, but those old ladies that the system doesn’t care so much about could avail themselves of this. If somebody tries to strap you to a trolley track to be run over in some ethical study of toilet safety you [could] say ‘En-Oh!’ with authority and the power to back up your refusal.
Carrying.
in 1974 +/- friend who worked at Ohare told me that more than a few handguns were retrieved from the trash receivers weekly and that at that time most of the carriers were believed to be black women who had forgotten about the detectors at the gates and still wanted to ride.
I wonder if there is any current statistic on who’s carrying that you might not suspect.
Regarding full doors versus having gaps under the doors, I see Americans constantly derided on Reddit for our toilet stall designs. I refrain from responding, “we design against having to see something we don’t want to see, we don’t seem to have the same level of people WANTING to look at someone on the toilet as you Europeans do” (in part because we do have our share of pervs).
However, I for one like a small gap under the door so I can see if there are feet in the stall. It just makes it easier to identify one that isn’t being used (or as Lucia points out, one where someone might be hiding with ill intent).
video clip on toilet safety be sure to watch til the end
https://youtu.be/RxW8MyyzvaY?si=NGo3C8XE4Qf2Ilxq
Russel,
I don’t run outdoors. But I tend to think without situational awareness those alarms are mostly useless. They don’t work if no one else is pretty close to see that the alarm corresponds to an assault. And you have to know to trigger it before you are assaulted. I might figure out to trigger it if I was jogging outdoors in the park trail, but otherwise, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t feel ready to set an alarm until after it’s too late.
instructions say when you’re going into dubious circumstances, you put your thumb on the button and hold it there. Most ladies attach them to the purse.
The noise is extremely loud
image
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1986162343869309397
Mark,
One of the judges in ballroom has concealed carry and carries when she travels. Long ago her ballroom dance partner tried to kill her! I’m not really ready to get a gun and go through all appropriate training.
Russell
I can’t help but think it would be hard to use the toilet while placing your thumb on the button. Like wise, I imagine it’s hard to wash your hands. An also, I suspect it’s difficult to carry packages of thing you just bought and keep your thumb on the button. It might also be difficult to use my hands for things like opening the car door if they are busy hovering over a button.
Derek,
I too do not really want to watch people on the toilet. Enough said. . .
for 20 bucks, it might save your life.
Lucia,
I remember. I don’t blame you. Most of the people who in my view are best qualified by their temperament to carry guns have the sense to want not to be bothered with it. I just hate the thought of you ever needing to defend yourself and not having the option to do so because you’re unarmed. Of course on the upside, it’s pretty unlikely you will ever need to.
Mark,
I’ve been discussing situational awareness with chatGPT…. and some of my history. ( Like with the weird guy who worked in the electronics shop who…. I’m pretty sure started trying to stalk me….but I evaded and he tired and moved on. Long story….. Later he pulled a knife on his boss. So, yeah…. he was weird…. The department head went around talking to people and about three of the female graduate students had stories similar to mine thinking he stated stalking…. but they evaded. )
Down in the dumps.
Why do things go wrong when you leave it to others thinking they have common sense?
Too late now so just have to live with it.
Grump.
Grump.
Grump.
Hey Grumpy, how are Dopey and Sneezy?
https://x.com/BrickCenter_/status/1986281022439473625/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1986165549735264461¤tTweetUser=maddenifico
Joshua, that appears to be a deal link at x.com. -lucia
“I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, ‘wouldn’t it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?’ So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.”
— Marcus, Babylon 5
Derek,
In a sense, this is one of the reasons for my faith. I don’t actually believe the universe is fundamentally unfair, although it’s a helluva thing to try to prove or demonstrate. To some extent I am guilty of caring more about what works than what’s true, and I know that sticks in the craw for many. I don’t love the realization either, but it is what it is.
What works is way more important than what’s true. I think that is pretty much the basis of the scientific method. If something works, then it must be true, at least within appropriate limits. Like Newton’s Law of Gravity. If it does not work, then it is false, at least outside certain limits.
I read recently that being a lesbian transexual was actually a thing. I imagine that works out really well for prisoners if you can get away with it.
This concept all went sideways when there was a push that individuals could unilaterally just declare their biological sex with all the benefits that might bring. The fact that the sciences went along with this discredited them.
Tom —
Yes, the men claiming to be trans-women so they could go to women’s prisons was indeed a thing. As one would expect, this resulted in some rapes and pregnancies which were denied or “explained” by the vehement trans-activists. It’s one of the things I find even more objectionable to the the biological males competing in women’s sports.
On Tom’s comment:
“I read recently that being a lesbian transexual was actually a thing.”
I am having trouble getting my head around that concept.
That is a double negative and an oxymoron and an enigma.
The WSJ finally states the “trillion dollar” pay package has conditions and is a long term deal.
These type of deal aren’t that unusual as moonshot pay is offered up with moonshot conditions. Musk’s original large payday with Tesla was similarly conditioned on “unobtainable” goals. At times, Tesla’s market cap has surpassed the combined value of the next 15, 20, 29, or 35 largest automakers
It passed with 75% of the vote.
It’s Musk Derangement Syndrome. This is not to say that Musk shouldn’t have avoided politics, that was a mistake.
Tom —
Whether Musk should have avoided politics is a value question. For Tesla shareholders, the value question is whether the positives of Musk’s involvement with and leadership of the company outweigh the negatives of his public persona (deserved or not).
For Musk, the value question is whether the long term impact of his political efforts is more important to him than the effect on his personal finances.
I would argue that at the level of his personal wealth, the long term impact of the federal deficit and societal impact from anti-Western, anti-capitalist movements is far more important. He could lose 80%, 90%, even 95% of his personal wealth and still be more than comfortable for the rest of his life.
When I first joined the L5 Society (half of what later became the National Space Society), there was a huge push for private expansion into space because activists felt (recognized?) government programs would always be limited by the self-interest and lack of vision of government workers.
In Heinlein’s Future Universe, the human diaspora was created by cheap energy from Shipstones and the unfettered expansion into space bolstered by D. D. Harriman. To some extent, I think Musk sees himself in both those roles.
My view is Musk should avoid politics because his value to our society is best served by him working at SpaceX, Tesla, etc. I don’t think he can fix politics because it is an entirely different skill set. I agree with his objectives.
It is of course his decision to do what he wants.
I hope Trump loses the tariff case at the SC which seems more than possible after oral arguments. Although the effects of Trump’s tariff chaos have not been as bad as feared (yet), this is no way to run an economy. Imposing tariffs because of advertisements you don’t like, ha ha.
I see tariffs as necessary when the other side is cheating such as a government unethically subsidizing an industry.
Industry wants long term stability and predictability more than it wants marginally better trade deals. I will stipulate that some of Trump’s crazy deals work out regardless of entrenched expert opinion.
Russell:
I think the other term for a lesbian transexual is “heterosexual male”. Just the rare type of heterosexual male who wants others to believe he is a female, but maintains his normal opposite sex attraction. I would wager that this type of male will not undergo hormone therapy or any sex change surgeries, but merely present as female, usually for a sexual kink (Autogynephilia). Or the other common type is the male prisoner who wants to be housed with female prisoners.
We have powerful, humanlike AI. We have Neuralink. Do we have the pathway to immortality?
1) a powerful AI system is Neuralinked to a human. Possibly it is necessary to do this in the formative stages. The child’s identity develops integrated with the AI.
2) the child is cloned
3) the old AI is neuralinked to the new clone.
There are severe practical problems here, but are there any theoretical barriers?
Obviously, the AI has to retrain periodically. Maybe every night when the child sleeps. Expensive but not a theoretical barrier.
Oops wrong thread. :/
Rick,
Thanks, that makes sense
FWIW, Gemini thinks not. Gemini thinks this would only be true if the AI was the self, and the wetware was just a sort of a peripheral. I don’t propose we run any experiments to figure this out.
Shrug.
Thanks to Rick’s explanation, I now understand the term “lesbian transexual”.
Now I’m trying to figure out what you call the partner who hooks up with a lesbian transexual….
Maybe just call them really confused.
Russell —
The really funny situation I saw once (in an article, not in real life) was a couple — one biological male, one biological female, but both “trans”. Okay, whatever floats their boats, I don’t care, just don’t push that on kids as normal (in my opinion).
UPDATE: SCOTUS apparently just issued an opinion that passports should use “sex assigned at birth” and issuing passports this way does not violate equal protection guarantees.
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/11/07/supreme-court-issues-major-opinion-on-transgender-identity-and-the-trump-passport-policy/
Russell:
That is a bit more confusing. How about Ab Normal. Just kidding. Just a female heterosexual who likes to partner with a biological male who thinks he is a female. Not my cup of tea . . .
Derek:
The Supreme Court case is good news. It certainly doesn’t violate the 14th amendment to identify people by their biological sex. It seems to me that it would actually violate the 14th amendment to mis-identify people’s actual biological sex (and violates common sense) in favor of what they wish they had been born as (but were not). Sanity is beginning to return to the United States.
Rick,
If your reference was to ‘Young Frankenstein’
I think the spelling is ‘Abby Normal’.
Image:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1986885136105758746?s=20
Maybe I’m a trans-lesbian-trans sexual.
I guess we need to establish an order of operations.
I would say AI would be able to copy a person so it is not discernible to other people under normal circumstances. However it is a copy and you would still die like normal after the copy.
Here is a “distinguished research professor” (but not a Distinguished Research Professor?) claiming that X and Y chromosomes do not determine sex:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lies-and-deception/202511/how-much-do-your-sex-chromosomes-really-determine
I have tentatively classified him as a Highly Educated Idiot.
Addition – It seems he actually is a Distinguished Research Professor.
Tom,
I thought to try to wiggle around that with the child developing identity with the AI attached. I hoped that if it was setup right, the AI would develop integrated with the child and there’d be no ‘seam’. The awareness and identity of the hybrid would actually belong to the gestalt. When the biological death occurred, at least half of that gestalt mind would continue and the biological part would be replaced and redeveloped. I figured that since the child and AI developed together from infancy maybe some part of the ‘soul’ of the child would belong to the machine.
Shrug. I certainly fault nobody for expressing skepticism. I am skeptical myself. Gemini flat out disagrees with the idea. It’s refreshing in a way to have it express disagreement. 🙂
You replace every biological piece at the smallest unit in your body one at a time with an electro-mechanical equivalent. Do you die somewhere? When? Hard to say.
Tom:
Or maybe a trans lesbian cross-dresser. A male attracted to females, who dresses as a male.
If you die but remain aware after you transition through death does it matter [that you’ve died]? It’s the afterlife, only it wouldn’t be a matter of faith and you wouldn’t be removed from life on Earth.
[Edit: I am not unaware that I am discussing something horrific. I’m less interested in the moral judgement right now and more interested in the feasibility.]
MikeM,
Well… that’s a mess…
Sure. And if you carry an SRY gene– which is normally on the Y chromosome, it does build testes. And if you don’t carry the SRY gene chromosome, it does not.
Sure. And they SRY gene is basically an “on off” gene for maleness or not maleness. It’s normally on the Y. But evidently, sometimes a copy of that gene can be on the X.
And if you do not have a SRY gene, the ovaries develop. Well… mostly…. there are other disorders.
If you assign biological sex by what gametes your body makes, any ambiguity is solved. Testes->sperm->male. Ovaries->eggs->female.
In the vast majority of cases for humans, XY dictates biological sex. But if you use gametes, the identification works reliably even in the case of disorders.
Mark:
Your question reminds me of Farmer’s Riverworld series. A kind of techno heaven in which at the end of the universe, advanced technology was used to go back through time and grab every intelligent life’s mind and put them into a simulation/computer.
Kind of like putting your mind into a machine – but everybodies, throughout time all into the same machine.
Techno heaven.
Russell:
Yep – I was going for that. Abby Normal.
Thanks RickA. I’m going to have to go read those.
mark bofill,
No doubt a very convincing replica of an individual is possible…. (looks like, talks like, acts like) …. one that passes the Turning test in spades! But is it really a copy of the person? I think not. Is immortality consistent with humanity? I think not.
Steve,
You’re probably right. I can’t shake the idea that what this would actually do is create long lived hybrid monsters or demons. To put it in religious terms, things don’t ever seem to end well when humans usurp God’s role. We are born, we live, we die; upset this order at one’s peril, I suspect.
I know most of you here are atheists though. I was sort of curious if you’d view it the same way I do.
I guess we have always used euphemisms when we talk about the chase…. Every Brothers, 1960…..
“Hey, bird dog, get away from my quail”
https://youtu.be/6c3M2jGkzko?si=D_zO5DXu3IaUiSRl
Rick,
I found the Abby Normal film clip, pure comedic geniuses Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman……..
https://youtu.be/C9Pw0xX4DXI
SteveF:
Like the Star Trek transporter beam – is the copy of you created out of energy at the other end of the beam really you? A question for the ages. The religious will say you cannot copy the soul – is it even energy?
I am sure some will upload themselves into machines and we will be able to judge (hopefully) the fidelity of the copying and whether their personality has changed or if they turn evil.
I suspect extreme age and experience would make us make decisions that our younger selves would consider evil – but the old old us would think merely practical.
Here is an excellent interview in which using gamete size to distinguish between the two sexes comes up as better than using DNA (as Lucia said):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbmsPY8NEEo
It takes a while to get to the gamete size portion of the interview – so be patient. Good watch anyway (I thought).
The transfer of awareness is the tricky part I assume. Not sure how one would prove that. Probably more of a philosophy discussion.
One good thing: the ‘uncanny valley’ hypothesis will soon be proven or disproven. 😉
I suspect AI generated imagery has already become so realistic that most people could never detect a difference. Physical robots will be infinity harder to make truly human-like.
Tom —
Heinlein’s I Will Fear No Evil is kind of an exploration into the idea of total body replacement and transference of consciousness.