White House definition of Sex.

[CharonY]

We already had some discussions on this topic, but now the White House has decided to put their own definition of sex (they basically abolished gender- no, really). This is a feeble attempt to provide themselves with some pseudo-scientific credentials. The definition are as follows:

Quote

(d)  “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e)  “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

Now, there is a biological definition that defines the different sexes as producing large or small gametes in anisogamous species. However (and as discussed earlier), that in various species the assignment can change. I.e. some fish start off by producing large gametes and produce small ones later in life. In other cases individuals do not produce either at some point in their life. There are also rare instances where individuals can produce both, despite the fact that vast majority of the species  doesn't.

I thin the authors are at least somewhat cognizant of the issue and decided to put the "at conception" part in to arrive at the desired binary classification. Yet, that itself leads to a circular argument as at conception obviously there is no production of gametes and only later in life can you see what actually is being produced (if at all).

I will also just quickly touch on an argument that folks have made in previous discussions (and I hope my memory is not too off). The argument is essentially based on a distinction between normal and abnormal. I.e. the assumption that there is a rule in biology resulting always in two sexes and therefore any exception to this are abnormal. The issue here is of course that nature has not concept of normalcy, what exists exist. They may or may not contribute to the next generation, but it does not erase their existence and their biological activities. Also it simply classifies the majority as the norm, which is a very democratic way of thinking about things, but not one rooted in natural concepts or laws. After all, nature has a lot of different reproductive strategies and when new ones arose they were "abnormal" for a time. Such is the nature of mutations.

So to sum up a bit the biological side: you can make a binary definition based on gamete size, which ultimately would result in a small-ish group falling in these categories. Which is fine for a definition, but not in a policy that is supposed to include the whole population and highlights the difference of biological classification schemes on the species level, vs fine classification of the whole population.

That all being said, while it seems like a bit superfluous, the executive order forces all agencies to use their definition, which would likely include the NIH. If one would take it literally, it could result in an impossible task (i.e. figuring gamete size at conception). And would certainly make policy unworkable. In the most precise way we would all be sexless as we produce no gametes at conception, for example.

My guess is that this is likely going to be challenged in court, but considering the state of the American judiciary, it is utterly unclear what the ramification could be. One the one hand it looks a bit like a culture war thing that is a distraction. At the same time, I can imagine that the actual consequences could be rather dire for individuals. Any thoughts on that matter?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

We already had some discussions on this topic, but now the White House has decided to put their own definition of sex (they basically abolished gender- no, really). This is a feeble attempt to provide themselves with some pseudo-scientific credentials. The definition are as follows:

Now, there is a biological definition that defines the different sexes as producing large or small gametes in anisogamous species. However (and as discussed earlier), that in various species the assignment can change. I.e. some fish start off by producing large gametes and produce small ones later in life. In other cases individuals do not produce either at some point in their life. There are also rare instances where individuals can produce both, despite the fact that vast majority of the species  doesn't.

I thin the authors are at least somewhat cognizant of the issue and decided to put the "at conception" part in to arrive at the desired binary classification. Yet, that itself leads to a circular argument as at conception obviously there is no production of gametes and only later in life can you see what actually is being produced (if at all).

I will also just quickly touch on an argument that folks have made in previous discussions (and I hope my memory is not too off). The argument is essentially based on a distinction between normal and abnormal. I.e. the assumption that there is a rule in biology resulting always in two sexes and therefore any exception to this are abnormal. The issue here is of course that nature has not concept of normalcy, what exists exist. They may or may not contribute to the next generation, but it does not erase their existence and their biological activities. Also it simply classifies the majority as the norm, which is a very democratic way of thinking about things, but not one rooted in natural concepts or laws. After all, nature has a lot of different reproductive strategies and when new ones arose they were "abnormal" for a time. Such is the nature of mutations.

So to sum up a bit the biological side: you can make a binary definition based on gamete size, which ultimately would result in a small-ish group falling in these categories. Which is fine for a definition, but not in a policy that is supposed to include the whole population and highlights the difference of biological classification schemes on the species level, vs fine classification of the whole population.

That all being said, while it seems like a bit superfluous, the executive order forces all agencies to use their definition, which would likely include the NIH. If one would take it literally, it could result in an impossible task (i.e. figuring gamete size at conception). And would certainly make policy unworkable. In the most precise way we would all be sexless as we produce no gametes at conception, for example.

My guess is that this is likely going to be challenged in court, but considering the state of the American judiciary, it is utterly unclear what the ramification could be. One the one hand it looks a bit like a culture war thing that is a distraction. At the same time, I can imagine that the actual consequences could be rather dire for individuals. Any thoughts on that matter?

Oh for sure it will go to court. For that is the American way. Then we can all enjoy the courtroom spectacle, with rival teams of snarling American lawyers, lots of gavel-banging: "Objection!" "Objection sustained! "Objection overruled!" etc, as seen on TV. And all at vast expense, to the benefit of said snarling lawyers. 

(I'm sorry but for my own sanity I've decided to view this new presidency through the lens of the "goat rodeo". If I took it all seriously it would do my head in.) 

 

[CharonY]

24 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Oh for sure it will go to court. For that is the American way. Then we can all enjoy the courtroom spectacle, with rival teams of snarling American lawyers, lots of gavel-banging: "Objection!" "Objection sustained! "Objection overruled!" etc, as seen on TV. And all at vast expense, to the benefit of said snarling lawyers. 

(I'm sorry but for my own sanity I've decided to view this new presidency through the lens of the "goat rodeo". If I took it all seriously it would do my head in.) 

 

I can sympathize. Fundamentally, a proper court procedure is not bad in principle. After all, there is quite some time dedicated to establish definitions and facts. Given the nature of public discourse, courts may be one of the few places where at least mechanistically facts still matter.

I remember the lawsuits involving Behe, and while I am still bristling at the involvement of courts to establish scientific facts, it was actually helpful for public discourse to have put claims to the test.

[exchemist]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I can sympathize. Fundamentally, a proper court procedure is not bad in principle. After all, there is quite some time dedicated to establish definitions and facts. Given the nature of public discourse, courts may be one of the few places where at least mechanistically facts still matter.

I remember the lawsuits involving Behe, and while I am still bristling at the involvement of courts to establish scientific facts, it was actually helpful for public discourse to have put claims to the test.

I actually printed off and read the entire judgement in the Dover School (Kitzmiller) trial, when it happened in 2005. It was well-written and surprisingly interesting. I felt that the judge must have enjoyed the case immensely.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

the actual consequences could be rather dire for individuals. Any thoughts on that matter?

Even if only for the way it signals that now the federal government itself has classified LGBTQ as sub-human. Easy targets. No consequences. 

Signaling is a lot of what’s happening, like the commutation of even violent January 6 offenders. It shows vigilantism and political violence is encouraged so long as you’re defending “our” side you’ll be supported. 

Edited 7 hours ago by iNow

[CharonY]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

Even if only for the way it signals that now the federal government itself has classified LGBTQ as sub-human. Easy targets. No consequences. 

Signaling is a lot of what’s happening, like the commutation of even violent January 6 offenders. It shows vigilantism and political violence is encouraged so long as you’re defending “our” side you’ll be supported. 

I wonder what the consequences would be. In a reasonable world, the courts should block much of these effects, but given the current situation I would not be too certain (but also have no real insights).

[iNow]

Immigrants, transgendered, and anyone else deemed to be unsavory by the mob will be targeted, and rather often it will done by those specifically sworn to protect them. 

The only way to overcome that is for enough good people to stand up and say, no. Not today. Not on my watch.

 

Burke: “Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents” (1770):

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

[CharonY]

Or, we have algorithms neatly dividing us up so that we can never gain critical mass.

I should also have added in OP that this is yet another attempt to abuse science to get to a predefined conclusion. It is just blatantly obvious due to how haphazard it is.

Like written by a first year computer science student hearing about gametes the first time (and potentially "female") but failing to recall how it is spelled. Like me, typing on a tablet.