Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD are claiming that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

My question to them (and to which you respond) was an attempt to have them try to understand that human biology is not so black and white. — Michael

I think your question was an attempt to undermine the concept of biological sex. That's a non-starter.

Therefore either a) these people are neither biologically male nor biologically female or b) your attempt at defining what it means to be a biological male and a biological female is wrong. — Michael

I would say a. I'm thinking of it from a healthcare provider's point of view. Biological male = XY, but not XX. Biological female = XX, but not XY.

All other cases would be handled on individual bases. It's not important to categorize those people as male or female. It's just important to know how their genetic makeup impacts the course of their care.

Some people have both XX and XY. Are they male or female?

Some people have XX male syndrome. Are they male or female?

Some people have XYY, some XXY, some XXXY, some XXXXY. Are they male or female? — Michael

I don't know why it's important to work that out. It remains true that a biological male has XY AND no-XX. A biological female has XY AND no-XY. Simple.

A man has XY & lacks XX.

She seems like a really cool person.

Yes, I know Helen (personally, in a very vague way). — AmadeusD

What? For real?

My understanding, and I may well be wrong, is that it is a prime influence on Islam; Absolute Submission. — Banno

Yes, but they generally learn about God's will from religious teachers, not through direct contact with the divine. If we're both Muslims and you tell me God told you to kill your son, I would call the police. See what I mean?

Oh, I think I confused you with someone else. :grimace:

I just got through reading about a person called Dr Helen Joyce, a former mathematician/journalist who is now an anti-trans activist. She says "trans woman" doesn't make any sense, and I can see her point. But if you don't call them that, what do you call them?

So if you don't call them trans-women, what do you call them?

Even so, it remains that the story is understood by many as advising one to maintain one's faith even if one believes that god is asking for an abominable act. — Banno

I don't think many view it that way. Maybe a few crazy Mormons.

I'm not oppressing you Stan. You don't have a womb.

I'd argue that everyone's gentics are a little bit different, and when chemical drugs that change biological features, the ambiguity grows even more. — Wolfy48

The idea that biological sex is not a meaningful concept or ambiguous in any way is complete boneheaded nonsense. The existence of rare cases of a person having both XX and XY cells does not change this.

"Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain rolls out." -- anonymous

Society is not a thing, though, complex or otherwise. It's just a name for a concept. — NOS4A2

Likewise energy is a number. It's a physical construct. It's not a thing.

And let's consider some hypothetical 46,XX/46,XY person with an equal number of XX cells and XY cells, ambiguous genitalia, and either bilateral oviotestis or streak gonads. Are they male or female? — Michael

Neither. With the overwhelming majority of humans, there's no ambiguity.

I agree. There isn't enough evidence to conclude that the Israelites were sea people.

The Sea Peoples were diverse. The Peleset are among those that we're pretty sure were sea peoples.

Was there ever any community of Israelites in Egypt? So no Joseph then? — BitconnectCarlos

The archeological record doesn't show that there was.

If the Israelites were the Sea People, then why did they need to invent a story about Egypt? They have their own history. Why not just tell their own story of arriving by sea instead of passing down a complete fabrication? — BitconnectCarlos

They couldn't read or write, it was a chaotic time. One of the tidbits I mentioned was the appearance in Egypt of a word that looks like Israel. So maybe not slaves, but sea-faring invaders.

I mean, if you look at Americans who've been here for a couple of hundred years, they're apt to have no information about how they come to be here. It would have been the same for the early Israelites.

I would agree that there is no evidence of a large-scale Exodus, as described in the Hebrew Bible, where millions of people are said to have escaped Egypt. Numbers in ancient sources are notoriously unreliable. — BitconnectCarlos

There's just no record of a community of Israelites in Egypt.

You've probably read that there's no evidence that there was ever a community of enslaved Israelites in Egypt. If you're interested in what we know about the emergence of the Israelites, check out 1177 BC by Eric Cline. There are some intriguing archeological tidbits that suggest that the Israelites may have been among the so-called sea peoples.

Which period is he referring to? — BitconnectCarlos

The end of the Bronze Age.

This moral question has been resolved, but in Abraham's day (2000 BC?), it wasn't. — BitconnectCarlos

I like Heath Dewrell's view (partly because I think he's right) that child sacrifice probably wasn't part of the deep history of the Israelites. The laws against it are probably related to the rise of a child sacrificing sect, possibly influenced by the Phoenicians. This would have been around the reign of King Ahaz.

I'm hoping someone can point me in the direction of those who see realism as a threat, and we can continue this ancient battle on an even footing. — NOS4A2

The realism you're referencing is really a type of idealism, right? It holds that platonic objects exist in some sense. Peirce is saying that a universe without ideas is a dead universe where nothing matters. It's a universe that can't break your heart because it's just swirling dust.

The reason Peirce is wrong to say that nominalism is a threat has to do with the way the psyche works. Morality is inextricably tied to the forces that give rise to identity. With everyone you meet, you're consciously or subconsciously assessing who they are relative to you, and they provide the stimulus from which you gather up who you are, what you want, what you need. This activity develops out of innate capabilities, so most people don't have any choice but to be practical idealists, no matter what their philosophies may be.

I think the exception to this is psychopaths. Though they tend to be highly intelligent, they can't make sense of what everyone else refers to as an "inner world." They can't explain their actions, as if they don't have enough of a sense of self to conceive of motive. Everyone else may see motives in their actions, for instance the crazy guy who buries women's heads in his backyard, each one facing his bedroom, appears to want women to see him in bed. But he can't answer the question: why did you do that? He lives in an entirely nominalist world. But there's no point in worrying about his philosophy, because it's being driven by underlying hardware problems. The only hope for him is death.

Psychiatrists do not classify gender incongruence as a psychosis. Unless you have studied psychiatry you are not qualified to have an informed opinion. — Michael

There's a growing number of detransitioners who say that transitioning was an attempt to cope with trauma. It's very common for detransitioners to claim it was too easy to access gender affirming care, and that people should be carefully screened and councilled, especially if they already have mental health issues.

These issues should be addressed without the aggressive activist commotion.

People should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity - but that's just my opinion. — EricH

:up:

I totally get that it's unconfirmed, but perhaps we could say that the sourcebook has some degree of credibility to it? — BitconnectCarlos

I don't see what's at stake here. Why would it make any difference?

It's tedious. And we all know the game plan. — Banno

Oh well. :grin:

Do we have reason to believe so? Does the claim in the book count for anything? — BitconnectCarlos

All we have is the information that a 13th king is listed. It's unconfirmed.

If it's you claiming the kings list is correct, yes, it's a baseless assertion.

Basically Netanyahu is also an American politician, so well can he handle the US. — ssu

Maybe Finland could work on getting a Netanyahu for themselves.

I get you in terms of the U.S., but I'm trying to work out on what one could consistently base an objection when biological sex and gender have no necessary connection because they are based on different categories of reality and gender is technologically mutable — Baden

I don't think a social construct has to have some "consistent base" other than community buy-in. If people require a person to have male biological sex in order to be a "real man" then biology is part of their gender construct. Their attitudes don't have to be logical.

Does it mean that objectors want anyone regardless of their biological sex to get arrested if they look too masculine? That, as I said, is inconsistent with wanting to protect biological women from encroaches on their space by biological men because it discriminates on a level, the physical, that now has no necessary connection to the biological in practice and so the objection could be applied to biological women as well as biological men. — Baden

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I think the problem is that for many, biological sex is a component of the social construct of gender, and I think it's pretty clear that this is true for the majority.

Since gender is a social construct, and therefore fluid to some extent, we might imagine a point where the idea of gender changes so that biology is no longer a part of it. We aren't there, though. The best an activist can do is demand that we should be there.

I may be mis-understanding him, but Harry seems to be very concerned. I'm not. — EricH

You don't care one way or the other? :up:

So you're saying it's a human right, not yet a civil right. My guess is that the issue will remain in flux for the next couple of generations. Where I think the government should act now is in researching successful and unsuccessful transitions so that people can make informed choices. States should decide how they want their public facilities used. Private facilities (like at a private school or coliseum) will probably be made available in a way that pleases the majority of the population, because that's how capitalism works. It probably won't ever get to the point of establishing civil rights, and that view is coming from pessimism about the outcome of trans activism.

I doubt people choose to imprison themselves in a hellish frame of mind. — praxis

Happens all the time.

Are we really concerned about where people relieve themselves? Or are we really discussing whether the process of transitioning actually changes a woman into a man?

- Let's say you have a book that contains information on an ancient people. It contains a list of rulers dating back 1000 years. We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years? — BitconnectCarlos

I think what the academic community does is build a collection of speculations that changes as new archeological data emerges. This article about the Sumerian kings list talks about how attitudes change over time.

-Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer? — BitconnectCarlos

First of all, I'd be mind-blown because I thought Moses was mythical. Coming to believe in a theistic divinity would require a shift in worldview for me. I doubt I would allow that. I'd explain events according to the view I have until I reached a dead-end and then stop and say I don't know what's going on.

Karma - means the same. In Buddhism, there's no Supreme Deity handing out rewards and punishment but there are hell realms all the same — Wayfarer

People can become stuck in a hellish frame of mind, but it's not punishment. It's a self imposed prison. It comes down to the things a person is telling themselves.

The irony is that theists justify their judgment upon others based upon concern for their souls. You offered a similar concern for the souls of theists but from an atheist perspective. — Hanover

We were talking about why theists might develop a negative tone when arguing with atheists, thinking it might be because of afflicted faith. Tom suggested it might be from pent up frustration about the state of the world and imagining that atheists are responsible.

I do fear divine judgement — Wayfarer

Really? Why?

Speculating: I think some theists believe they have read all the right philosophy and theology and have many of the answers and that modern secular culture is debased and decadent. They're probably angry about the state of the world, and when they encounter people with views they've identified as the cause of contemporary troubles, they lash out. — Tom Storm

I hadn't thought of that. That makes me feel sympathy.

I was thinking the same thing: will and counter will.

That would be a friendly sort of discussion though. I was responding to this:

We see this happen here all the time, as people are often accused of bad faith because dogmatic atheists and theists tend to perceive persecution, ill intent or hostility in any form of dissent. — Tom Storm

Why would a religious person enter into a discussion on a philosophy forum and become angry and insulting? I don't think it's to bounce ideas around. In Jungian terms, it's some kind of complex: a tangle of jagged emotions. There's probably a brewing crisis of faith, looking out at humanity wondering how to make sense of it. Just speculating.

isn't it a bit rich for theists to seek out a place where there will be a lot of atheists, then complain that there are too many atheists?

Just plain rude. — Banno

:lol: