your ad hominem is duly noted

He must remain risible for you in order for you to maintain your way of understanding the basis of scientific fact. — Joshs

He was a poor sociologist. This is risible, also. There are two sexes. I'm engaging with the responses.

I can do no more.

WE? until when? say it becomes a scenticfic pos — Kizzy

It isn't one, by its elaboration. Like - he isn't using science to support this system. So, your question is somewhat nonsensical, on that account. The rest of your comment seems non sequitur talking to yourself..

You are incorrect. Can you say why you think it is not? — Mark S

Because it flat-out isn't. You are trying to prove something. I am denying it. You need to present something to support it. It flat-out isn't a universal. Do your best...

How is someone's preference for the moral principle that is most harmonious with people's moral sense a "shotgun to the foot"? Please explain. Are you saying they should not prefer it? — Mark S

This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the basis for this theory lives in your head.

(which studies why moral norms and our moral sense exist), only provides instrumental oughts. — Mark S

No it doesn't. It provides descriptive narratives about existing moral behaviour. It gives absolutely nothing by way of 'ought'. It gives us what some people think that means currently and nothing else. Which is what you've run with. What you think morality is - and then carried it forth into a logical system. Again, fine, but not in any way science, or derived from it.

Morality as cooperation is silent regarding ultimate moral goals (utilitarianism's focus). — Mark S

No. It is aimed at co-operation. This also goes to the above., You are flat-out ignoring basic facts about what you're saying - whicih stem from your own account. Contradictory.

Morality as cooperation only deals with moral means as defined by our moral sense and cultural moral norms, not moral ends. — Mark S

No, Your moral sense. Which, it seems, is 'harmonious co-operation toward well-being' or some such.

There is no "moral science" except as a strawman. — Mark S

Then your entire premise is false and I am happy to leave it here for you to play with :)

If perception is the entire process “of getting from an object to an experience”, then in what sense is that entire process indirect? — Luke

It is not A-B. It is A-B-C-D-E-F and maybe G is the experience. This isn't complicated...

It's very simple—are you saying colours and seeing colours are the same thing? — Janus

I've addressed this. Restating the question in terms i've noted make no sense isn't helpful my guy.

hese are causal physical processes which give rise to perception, but which are themselves prior to perception — Janus

They are the process, and i've provided four citations to show that this is how the term is used. It explains the entire problem you're having with an extremely obvious and basic way understanding "direct" and "indirect" with regard to perception - which is the bodily process of getting from light to experience. As i've source-quoted. So, on this you're just wrong.

What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. — Tom Storm

They do. Though. The ambiguous language is what leaves open all of the routes of harm.

Compassion without analysis is bereft of effectiveness.

I noted earlier that your point about the SRY gamet was fine. Our only disagreement at this point is that sex must necessarily be defined as being only two. There are good reasons to do so, but I can also see other reasons not to. That's all. — Philosophim

This will be my last reply. The reason why, is that you are wilfully ignoring almost everything I have said to service a continuation of your point, which has been dealt with ad nauseum throughout several thorough replies. I will insert quotes to show that this is the case at every step of this exchange. It is not worth my time to continue speaking with you on a topic through which you remain impossible to converse with..

For the above:
We didn't disagree about that. Whcih i've pointed out. I've given several copies of the scenario in whci teh word can be redefined You have utterly refused to point out how you've come to conclusions counter to the exact things I have said, continually. This is example 1.

Here's an article in scientific America talking about the idea of making more than two sexes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ — Philosophim

I have already dealt with even this specific article in this thread. It expressly points out that there are two determined sexes and variations within them. I have also point out, elsewhere inthis thread, that it is the exact same scenario as when SA posted an infographic by a Social Media manager that claimed the same - and concluded that there are indeed two sexes. The problem you seem to be 100% ignoring is that you are foregoing any attempt whatsoever to label (what we currently call) sex correct. I don't give a hoot if you think 'sex' can be redefined. Sure. But then WHAT REPLACES IT TO ACCURATELY DENOTE THE TWO *what we currently call* SEXES? You're just straight-up ignoring half of the conversation you're trying to have.

you can't understand my point and you believe I've misunderstood yours. — Philosophim

Neither of these things are true, and neither of them are intimated by anything elther of us has said - other than you constantly pretending that you haven' read direct replies to your insistence on redefinition etc.. which is have AGREED TO MULTIPLE TIMES. THIS is why I can't grasp what you think is going on. It is utterly insensible in light of the actually exchange being had. If i said "Hey, how're you doing?" and you reply "Uh, it's about 11:45 i think" you need to be told you didn't address teh question. That is eaxctly what's happening here.

Where did I state this was a mental condition? Do women have a mental condition for wanting to wear dresses and paint their nails? No. Same with transgendered individuals. Look, my friend wrote lesbian fan fiction for years (Nothing I'm interested in). I've never once thought it was a mental condition. — Philosophim

I did not intimate that you did. If you read what I wrote and took that you from it you literally had to make up a load of words that I didn't write. Apart from this, this utter strawman you want me to reply to is insulting. You can do better.

My entire point is that "transgenderism" is a condition, and that liking certain fashion is not. HOw could you possible be this horrible at reading plain English? This si why I asked you to go back and poinmt out how you got to these conclusions. YOu've refused. I have to assume you are not actually reading these replies, now that i've given you the chance to show otherwise.

I'm not seeing the contradiction, — Philosophim

Sorry, are you actually having trouble understanding plain English here? You literally quoted where i said i saw a contradiction and you cleared it up.

I apologise but this frustration is 100% warranted. You are not engaging whatosever. You are either being dishonest, or not reading my replies, you're bringing up things that aren't related to points, you're misattributing utterances and you're making claims about things you're quoting that aren't supported by the quotes.

Ok. Thanks mate.

Relax. :) — Philosophim

I literally do not know what you're reading into my comments, but 'worked up' is not something I'm willing to accept about them. I've explained, in non-emotional terms that you appear resistance. Take it as you will my dude. You have laid out contradictory statements attempt to reject the assertions I've made. I was trying to make sense of this. Unfortunately, this isn't too helpful :P

There is no existent thing out there that decrees 'sex must be defined this way'. — Philosophim

That is precisely not what i addressed or talked about in any of my comments.

As 'sex' is defined — AmadeusD

See above. You seem to be arguing with something i've not said. Sex as defined gives no wiggle room to some third appendage. That's my point. And it's flatly true. I also gave an avenue for another culture adding to that - by redefinition, entirely, of the notion of 'sex', and attributing a different symbol to what we understand to be an immutable binary. That this isn't landing seems odd to me. Could you perhaps point out what's getting away from you there?

What is more important is coming up with definitions that serve purposes of being logical, clear, accurate, and useful to the most people. — Philosophim

Which is the only aim I took, and exactly the one all my comments have pushed toward. Again, can you point out where you think that might not have been the case?

You have to understand that your view that there should only be two sexes is an option. — Philosophim

This is not 'my view'. Sex as defined is restricted to two. It is a binary. It is a term which was designed to signify the reproductive binary of male/female in dimorphic animals. If you want to redefine, I have given an option for that to happen. As it is, your position here is nonsensical as it uses the word 'sexes' (which is restricted to two, by definition) and then calls into question 'my opinion'.

my opinion isn't engaged, whatever, in the above conflict of terminology.

Words are agreed upon by communities, not dictated from above. — Philosophim

I really, seriously, cannot grasp what you think is happening here. I'd really, really like for you to go back to the requests for outlining how you could come to the interpretations you have - I am nearly certain you are either wilfully misinterpreting or not reading my entire comments (this, because I've addressed, directly and at-length, many of your points here..)

No one, anywhere, has suggested that this is the case. I have even given a perfectly reasonable scenario in whcih the word 'sex' could be redefined to mean something other than in currently it. Can you remember what that was?

Another community than the one which designed and deployed the term. So we're in agreement. But you're still being extremely resistant to the asserted system (if you don't like it, that's fine. I'm talking about your inapt responses to my comments).

Next response is unrelated - starting a different track of enquiry on your positions:

The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail. They could do all this and be happy. — Philosophim

Does it not strike you as pathologising to label enjoying certain fashion as some kind of mental condition? (transgenderism is a mental condition, whether or not you think its an illness - its a condition of hte mind, if you see what i mean).

The underlying immutableness of sex as chromosomes remains. — Philosophim

While i disagree, pretty vehemently, with this claim, the rest of your post was perfect to explain what I saw as contradiction. Thank you very much :)

Meaning, both the definition of sex cannot change, and one's sex cannot change. — Philosophim

Hey mate, I'm not editing this back into my more substantive reply, incase you're reading it right now - or, it's not particualrly relevant because I've missed something further on in the thread But:

The above quote seems to indicate that you're not open to the position you're currently taking. Has the position on the above changed, in a way that would explain the current acceptance of redefinition?

reveals — Mark S

It does not.

Yes.

Ok. Thanks mate.

What exactly is the problem with the work environment? In what sense it is unethical and why? — Alkis Piskas

I have the same problem you do, but it has been put to me that I was supposed to infer a load of historical context into OP before replying.
My position remains the same "the work environment" is not something apt for ethical discussion. Moliere feels different - but seems to think that context I mentioned is patent, and unavoidable.

My reply would just be an exact restating of my previous. You haven't engaged it. No worries.

The above principle is universal to the direct and indirect reciprocity strategies that are encoded as our moral sense and cultural moral norms. It is universal to what is descriptively moral in societies with the exception of favoritism for kin. — Mark S

No it isn't.

2) Maximize harmony with everyone’s moral sense. — Mark S

This is a shotgun to the foot. This is an emotive position.

It is an instrumental ought — Mark S

Then I have no issues. I just reject that anything you've posited is any way 'moral science'. It appears, patently, your assertion carried forth into a logical framework where you get the desired result of a self-consistent system. This is just utilitarianism with 'co-operation' instead of 'happiness' as its aim. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly falls short of anythign we could consider a scientific position or train of thought.

Ok, is this still just ‘pop sci’? — Joshs

Yes. The article also notes the SRY-functional determination of sex and then just ignores it to wank on about phenotypical aberrations post determination. This is akin to that infographic SA posted (made by a social media manager) which claim sex wasn't binary, yet points out that the variations only occur within the determined sex groups.

For your second link, I need only look at your quoted passage:

" the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities." that is literally politics. Not science. You can also tell this is the case with the following:

". Although sex is typically misconceptualized as a binary of male (XY) or female (XX), many other chromosomal arrangements, inherent variations in gene expression patterns, and hormone levels exist. "

The claim (that sex is typically misconceptualised) relies on the further assertions of the sentence to even be viable. That's again, not science, but politics. Those further elements don't affect one's sex determination. It affects ones 'sex expression' as it was put by Timothy.

And more;
"Moving forward, we should consider implications of sex beyond the binary categories of male (XY) and female (XX). "

That hasn't been the standard for a long time. Most TRAs are arguing with a ghost on this particular topic. Anyhow, this is an opinion piece. It is not supportive of a scientific claim about what sex is.

Relax, we're trying to do the same thing. — Philosophim

AS noted, you seem absolutely resistant to a fool-proof grammatical way of solving your problem. What would you have assumed, If i had rejected the same?

I'm just making sure its clear, unambiguous, and not based on phenotype. — Philosophim

That was the case from teh go - which is why the resistance seems to obtain, from my perspective. I'm not 'accusing' you of anything, i'm letting you know how it's coming across to me.

"There are two sexes." — Philosophim

Can only mean anything other than referring to the patent fact that dimorphic species reproduce by the existences of two sexes - if that other culture has usurped teh term and inculcated it into an entirely different system that represents exactly the same thing. Otherwise it is both grammatically, and empirically incorrect at worst, and misleading at best. So, while point is somewhat taken, it is so vanishing in this context I'm not seeing why its being addressed.

I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this. — Philosophim

As 'sex' is defined, there is no viable option other than male or female. Again, if another culture usurps this word into a system that has a different word for sex(as we understand it) fine. But that's a ridiculous reason to accept that usurping.

By the way, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality," has some good insights for you. — Vaskane

It doesn't. Foucault was and remains risible, along with Nietzsche. You explain yourself with every name-drop.

I'm unsure what exactly you're trying to ask. Colours are a sensation (well, a class of sensations, anyway). Read into that what you will, using your own grammar, as I don't think yours is adequate or helpful.

I disagree — Luke

Fair enough. I'm unsure that's supportable, or helpful.
Here, here and here make it plain (to me, at any rate) that 'perception' is the word used, in normal language situations, to refer to the process and faculty of getting from an object to an experience (those particular terms, mine).

And here at 1.1 and 1.4 seems to outline that, even in a philosphically-bounded use of the word, we are referring to "perceptual experiences" in the conflict between IDR and DR. Both positions, apparently, accept that 'perception' is a process which results in something that we are arguing is either indirect or direct. But, it is not at all posited that 'a perception' is the end-result of a process of perception. Beucase that's... frankly, stupid.

In conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things. — Echogem222

This seems to forego what his point actually was - to remain humble in the face of apparent knowledge.

I doubt many, if any, would claim Socrates actually claimed to know no things whatever. Then again, some claim he didn't exist.. so..

We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222

This seems standard.

Everything you've said is hollow and rests on multiple logical fallacies, to include anchoring, confirmation bias, and false dichotomy to name a few. There really is no point in engaging with that. — Vaskane

You said you wouldn't reply anyway. But you have, and not provided anything relevant. Not. My. Circus.

Seeing colours is a visual sensation, colours are not visual sensations. — Janus

This is exactly what Michael pointed out you getting lost in. You literally further complicated the grammar he provided (incorrectly, too - colours are obviously visual sensations. 'seeing a colour' is that sensation) and it now makes little sense for hte discussion (that pesky term 'seeing' being the main problem). But that is not to say is precludes you from being right in your actual point. This is a clarifying comment.

Then again, the experience itself feels like you ARE experiencing distal stuff. You don't feel like you're watching a baseball game in your head, you feel like you're watching a baseball game out there. And both senses are true in their own contexts, I guess. — flannel jesus

:ok:

If those images are your perceptions, then your sentence means "I perceive perceptions". If those images are your perceptions — Luke

Hmm, point taken.
Using "a perception" is a bit misleading though as 'perception' is symbolizing the process, which we do not grasp fully, of getting from object to experience. The resulting images are one aspect, and likely the final result, of perception as a process. If that final product then labeled 'a perception', i think its a bit incoherent. Maybe that's an issue here.

What you perceive is the world, not the images. — Luke

IN some sense, I agree, but it is indirect, in any sense, unless it refers to those images outlijne above.

I think you're asking too much of a perception if you expect it to present objects, instead of to represent objects. — Luke

I'm rejecting that it's a reasonable expectation, too. This is what the Direct Realist demands of it and given this rejection, I can't commit to direct realism, largely because of this chasm between the object and the experience. Which is why I suggested that if 'direct' only relates to the images ("the perceptions") then sure, it's direct. But we don't 'directly perceive' any objects, even on this conception because of the indirect nature of sight, even precluding final 'images' from the process. The objects have only an indirect causal relation to the bodily process of perception.

Maybe that's enough to reject naive realism, but naive realism isn't hard to reject. — Luke

This might be the case - but i would then accuse the indeterminant nature of 'Direct Realist's talking about their view as a reason to reject it also, with Naive realism. A 'Direct Realist' who doesn't hold that we are interacting directly with worldly objects, it appears to me, is arguing for indirect realism under a guise.

fact remains that the biological sciences are moving away from the male-female binary. — Joshs

Hmm. I don't think it does. It never really was, either

Bringing in a single speculative quote does not overturn the sex binary.

And in any case, some subset of biologists 'calling into question' something doesnt' represent a trend. I would also posit that in science, trends come and go. So, I hear your point - I think its very weak, and doesn't serve the claim you're making.

In fact, the paper I quoted from disagrees with the non-binary view. — Joshs

Seems to me, a rather odd conclusion given the claim quoted above. But, neither of us are biologists and I am open to your postion being hte case. I simply see no evidence for it. This type of stuff only turns up in pop sci.

Again, like I said, you're just bias towards your faith in science, and ignore the historical sense of things. I'm going to refer to you as a woman now too, since you don't care about what your friends think, they are either male or female based off your judgement. Hell you're neither man nor woman, don't have the intelligence. See how bias works? Obviously goes to show they're nowhere near your friends. So instead of constantly reverting back to your objective bias -- as men of resentment do -- perhaps ease up a little and consider your "friends," preferences. Otherwise, I say that gives everyone free game to ignore your preferences. Which I generally do ignore objective dogma.

That said, think we've beaten this topic to a pulp. Say whatever you want I won't be replying to it anymore, you probably can't even perform the sciences you have faith in. — Vaskane

Ok, well this is not much more than a rant and engages literally nothing i've said - including the fact that you're continually lying about what i've said. Feel free. Dummy-spitting is quite common. Your position makes no sense and you've contradicted yourself multiple times in service of making yourself feel better about condescending to someone who sees through your position as purely emotive. Not my circus.

I'm surprised to hear you say this. So if I'm XX I can be male? Have you really thought this one through? What is your alternative and why is that better than genetics? — Philosophim

Yep. Its called de la Chapelle syndrome.
Fwiw, "my" alternative doesn't derive from me but its certainly true that I 'prefer' a factor other than genetics to determine sex (largely, because of the problems you're dealing with in this thread). It is a standard used by biologists attempting to do exactly what you are - avoiding language complications to prevent productive research or discussion. Two names that come to mind are Colin Wright and Zach Elliot . These are not given as case-closers, just evidence i'm not bringing these things out of either an unrelated field, or my own mind.

The alternative, which is covers every human ever, and categorises into precisely two categories without (known) exception, and with full utility in the sense that once categorised, it gets set aside unless medically relevant, is to use the activation of the SRY gene as a marker for sex, given that this is determinant of which cascade of sexual development is engaged. This version actually lends far more support to intersex individuals as it posits that we should actually pay attention to one's sex, and no one's phenotype, as closely as we have. Also, aberrations down the track abound (sort of.. they're actually very rare) but cannot affect the determination, previous in time, of which sexed hormonal cascade was engaged. This would be the "potential" part of the whole gamete argument, if that was preferred by someone. The potential to produce each gamete is absolutely determined by which cascade is triggered.

Where is this established? — Philosophim

First, have a go at making sense of this piece: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/ (the misuse of Gender here is palpable).

Then this https://www.sciencealert.com/a-baby-s-sex-is-about-more-than-just-its-x-and-y-chromosomes-new-research-reveals

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" I — Philosophim

have covered, multiple times throughout thread. And in this context, that the person has Klinefelter, as defined, means they are male. Like, someone experiencing menstruation is female. That's not arguable, is it?

What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words. — Philosophim

Absolutely. Am trying to establish how this delineation works - you seem resistant.

So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense. — Philosophim

No it doesn't. Because that term belongs to a culture in which is it bounded to Males experiencing a certain genetic expression. That is what it symbolises in the culture in which it arose.

Another culture coming along and misappropriating the word isn't helpful, or sensible. At the very least, it violates, entirely hte premise of your attempt to solve the problem that exact thing causes. I'm unsure how this is not obvious.

Sense? Sure. Provides a basis for ought? No.

Just so, my friend.

You don't directly perceive images formed by your brain. Those images are your perceptions — Luke

That is, in fact, what that sentence means. I do not see the distinction you're trying to make here. My brain conjures up images of objects - which aren't the objects. And my experience is of that. The idea that the images conjured by my brain are distinct from my perceptions may be misguided, but it's not relevant to the position. I can only experience those images. I cannot experience anything but (in the realm of vision). That's what matters.

What makes them "indirect representations of distal objects"? — Luke

A representation is indirect. It is something re-presented. Unless you're positing that looking at an apple causes an apple to appear physically in my, physical mind.. I'm unsure how this question is sensible. Also:

between the objects and my sense organs and further, my photo receptors, and further my nerves, and further my visual cortex, and even further my experience of such.. — AmadeusD

Answering the question "How could this be direct, given there are several way-points - one of whcih we don't even understand, and at least one of which changes the actual form of the 'message'.

The relevant intermediary is between the objects and your perceptions, not the objects and your sense organs. — Luke

They are all relevant. It is literally enough to say that my sight is caused by light bouncing off an object an entering my body to reject Direct Realism. It is very strange that no one has even attempted to deal with this, but still maintains their positions.

On a direct realist account, its not even an open move to claim direct perception - because you take it that empirical knowledge is direct. Therefore, If you 'actually know' that sight is indirect (if you're a direct realist, it is because you wholesale accept the empirical evidence as infallibly direct) then it defeats your position. Which is an interesting conundrum.

The point is, you have to have another system of sight to get around the known system of sight, to claim direct perception. But again,. it seems to me fairly clear that you are arguing a position you couldn't hold.

Surely, the intermediary - whatever it is - does not provide a direct perception of its distal object, and allowsonly a representation of the object to be perceived without allowing the distal object to be immediately perceived. — Luke

If the above isn't actually your position, and i'm missing context, I am sorry.

But heck, even if you were to read this and go "Ah fuck, I was wrong. Direct Realism is obvious nonsense"...Indirect Realists get ding-en-sich, though. So. Fuck.

Why would clothes also survive death? — Tom Storm

Im not quite sure this is apt to deal with the claim people are making about ghosts (well, those who have thought about it and theorize, rather than just emotionally reacting to any old thing as if it were a ghost - to put it black-and-whitely).
My understanding of those 'thought through' claims are something like:

When a person dies, they leave an after image. The after image is.. what... ectoplasm? Whatever, the point is that its entirely informed by the physical state of the person before they died. Their body, clothes etc.. Are part of hte after-image. If, for some reason, the after image cannot fade (think squinting after seeing a bright screen spontaneously) that after image becomes just an image. It is what the person, here, consists in, because their 'non physical' aspect is trapped in teh spatio-temporal world, within the after-image.

I also think that's absurd - but i guess its strictly possible where physical clothing surviving physical death of an unrelated being (i.e a shirt is not part of your being) isnt.

Surely, the intermediary - whatever it is - does not provide a direct perception of its distal object, and allows only a representation of the object to be perceived without allowing the distal object to be immediately perceived. — Luke

That is, in fact, the hump the indirect realist cannot understand a Direct Realism not getting over.

If the Realist argument boiled down to "I directly perceive images, formed by my brain, which are indirect representations of distal objects caused by intermediaries between the objects and my sense organs and further, my photo receptors, and further my nerves, and further my visual cortex, and even further my experience of such.." I don't think there would be a conflict.

Well, your argument is highly lacking to posit sex binary1.. And you're being highly disingenuous when you rely on the SRY Cascading Hormone function to "cause a penis and testes"2. to be formed to be "male." Well, SRY may not trigger and XX may not have a penis and testes and thus may not fit your standard3. for being "male." Yet you're still basing them as being male because of the "XX." Or some other variable when the SRY cascading hormone function fails in making a fully fledged male4. — Vaskane

Mate, nothing here represents my views in any way that can be called reasonable. I say with literally not even a lick of negativity - I think you jmight be in one of your troughs. You went through one in November, i think, and came back to apologise about it.

(i've plotted bold numbers in your above comment so I can respond to points in turn)

1. No, it isn't. I have given a precise definition of binary sex which includes every single human being which has ever existed - it appears to be the one biologists use, and in any case is 100% apt for the thread topic, and solves OP's problem neatly;

2. I didn't, and don't say that, anywhere;

3. That's YOUR standard. Obviously. My standard encompasses any phenotype which has resulted from SRY-activated hormone cascade - whether aberrant or ideal (I also note that in this, you're committed to a 'male' having a fully functional penis and testes. Odd, given you're pretending to argue that its non-biinary). If this conception captures people you dont consider male thats fine, but it says nothing about hte position and conception; and

4. YOUR conception of a 'fully fledged male'. Mine requires SRY-activation and nothing more. Everything else you've said indicates your position on sex is that it is far more narrow and aesthetically-defined (i.e you're talking about the 'whole person' but require a penis and testes to be male, on these comments - I must assume this isn't your actual position, you've just confused yourself into sayings that entail it).

There is no such thing as a human(who) is not either male or female. You haven't presented even a theory about how that could happen. So, yeah. We're left with a binary. — AmadeusD

It is what it is (bolded edited in for sense).

Each of these points either contradicts your initial claims, or is nonsensical because you've made up a position and attributed it to me. Why are you making me defend a version of 'male' you've come up with? I've asked you outright not to do that multiple times. If you made another assertion about something I haven't said, attributed to me, What do you think I should do? Would you continue talking to someone who's making up things to argue with you about?

What is universally moral – strategies that solve cooperation problems without exploiting others — Mark S

Why would this be an Ought?

so your claim that my usage of moral is "an arbitrary assertion" is, at best, unwarranted. — 180 Proof

Its completely apt. Your rejection of it, is just another example of ignoring your Emotivist bent. That's not on me, my dude.

Okay this strawman is obtuse — 180 Proof

Its a perfectly sound take on your position. If you think that constitutes a strawman, by all means.

incorrigibly — 180 Proof

Pretending that you being unable to convince someone is a result of their stubbornness is... risible. I note you haven't attempted to clarify anything, either. You've referred to writings which I have also referred to and then just asserted something not readable from it. Okay. But that ends there, then.

I've argued for my moral position on this thread only as a critical objection to the OP's "morality as cooperation" scientism and not as a fully systemized argument (which is why I'd acknowledged several influential moral philosophers at the close of this post). Anyway, enjoy shadoxboxing with strawmen. :yawn: — 180 Proof

I responded to the post you linked to. Which is elsewhere.
You seem quite well acquainted with Straw :)

↪Lionino It really, really isn't. But it will get there very quickly, i'm sure. — AmadeusD

We're there dude. @Lionino (sorry, f'd up tagging earlier)

So the Penis and the Clit come from the same? Starting to look more like a sliding scale than a binary. That's an easy position to overturn mate, I thought you would hold the harder one. Hence me using the Gametes. My apologies for upping your game for you. — Vaskane

Sorry, can you stop putting forth things I haven't said and then responding to them as if I have? Your ability to infer is seriously lacking, and so It's hard to deal with responses that prefer positions I don't hold for their basis.

Hmm. You have presented precisely nothing to 'overturn' the sex binary. There is no such thing as a human is not either male or female. You haven't presented even a theory about how that could happen. So, yeah. We're left with a binary. Phenotype is a sliding scale, absolutely. But this is not sex.

1. That's exactly how it comes across *shrug* I like you; it seemed worth mentioning. Still feels that way. Defensive, and rhetorical more than exploratory.

2.

That's a nice line. How do I interpret this? — Tom Storm

I don't really think that's relevant. It was a quip. But I put forwrard a legitimate question, as well. I was responding to your claims, and wanting clarity. If this isn't something you're prepared to sort of 'debate' then fine.

trans people don't regularly face bigotry and assaults just for being trans? — Tom Storm

3. They claim to. That's all we have. Statistics in most Western countries outline quite clearly that trans individuals (males, more specifically) are more likely to harm others, than be harmed. Hence, my pointing out that you do not have the entire story. If we're going to go off self-report, I would think it something you're happy to dismiss as a non-problem. Otherwise, self-report wouldn't be the basis for the claim.
It seems like the motivation for this stype of story-telling is compassion. But compassion without investigation is nonsense.

A pre-SRY structure which is altered during the proceeding hormonal cascade into either a phallus, or not (there is more to "not' but this suffices here).

've seen plenty of trans phobia and it is unsafe to walk the street as a trans person around here. — Tom Storm

Around where? Czechnia?

I am not comparing the hatred of trans people with the hatred of any other groups. — Tom Storm

Then from what is it exceptional?

I have no 'story' I — Tom Storm

You literally just told us a story about your interactions with, and conception of Trans....

Well I don't care that you do not care. — Tom Storm

Sure. That's kind of the point - No idea why you're taking this as some kind of an attack. I am putting forward that your version of trans experience is entirely incomplete, and is leading you to an inaccurate view, necessarily missing parts of the global situation.

It is the activation (or not) of the SRY gene in utero which determines which (male or female) developmental cascade one undergoes (very basically, Mullerian or Wolffian). From that point, aberrations occur in about 0.018% of people qualifying them for the "DSD" label because their aberration returns a non-ideal (in the strict sense) phenotype with reference to the sex present in that individual. You will note, though, that DSDs are sex-specific in almost all cases and this is not an issue for the binary. The one's which can occur in both, occur differently in each sex (per SRY/not SRY).

Many professionals actually take this to be something 'determined' at conception, and merely expressed at a certain point during early gestation. — AmadeusD

You are an especially bad reader, reasoner and commenter.

(having had to go back, we're at least fully aligned on gender per se :ok: )

I now think you may be trolling me.

You are talking, directly and obviously, about a theory which holds that gamete production is the determining factor for sex (male/female). It isn't., and I've been extremely clear about that. I have, not once, even intimated this was my position - yet it is the only one you are objecting to.

You have argued with a position I don't hold, despite my jettisoning it from my comments several times - and never even mentioning that position OTHER THAN TO DENY IT.

Sex is binary. There is no argument.
It is not based on gamete production (for the simple reason that anyone who used to, or will shortly begin producing gametes no longer has a sex on this conception).

There literally are intermediaries. — Michael

Physical, inarguable ones. It's quite fun watching them dance around this.
Luke is making some inroads, though, positing that 'direct' relates to perceptions (representations) and then refering to Austin's preposterous attempt at denying the physical, empirical, measurable reality of sense-data.

I said you position is valid, what more do you want from me? — Vaskane

I don't want anythhing from you. But you continually discuss a position i don't hold in respect of my comments.
Your discomfort with recognizing both the developing use of words, and attaching words to immutable facts is all well and good (and not disingenuously..it is a good scepticism to have, generally) but questioning terms like "one" and "two" as if there's some argument about what they refer to is odd - particularly as it appears you are responding to decades-old arguments, with decades-old arguments (though, in that context, you're on the higher ground for sure)

I don't feel you were tactic hopping, I'm just trying to remain open on the subject cause it seems weird to me that sex was originally from Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate. It only became so entwined with "gametes" only near the turn of the 20th century. Only then did a biologist find something to apply their dualistic view of the concept to our body's functioning sex organs and reproduction system, narrowing it exclusively to something that fit their prejudice and say, "ah, the Gametes are core that determines sex." A sort of self fulfilling prophecy that purposefully excludes the history of the word and concept. Basically a sterilized scientific view with 0 philosophy involved.

As Pantagruel said in the thread on faith, science can only point to mundane facts. So it was forced to hand pick the most mundane elements of the human body when trying to identify Sex, in this case Gametes. — Vaskane

It just seems you have a problem with your internal struggle with gametes. I didn't posit that, and have disowned it (to the degree that someone who doesn't hold a view can disown it) multiple times. You've not engaged with anything else i've said. I can't find anything in this to be 'going on with' as it were. Appreciate your time.

Umm... You realize that biology is the study of all life, and for biologists it is a pretty reasonable thing to do, to recognize the significant distinction between sexes that they do. Right? — wonderer1

Yes, this is an obvious problem with Vaskane, and other's position.
For some reason they think that even if something is 1 or 0 we need to talk about other numbers.
And that particular one completely, and utterly ignores the fact he's wrong about hte theory, what defines it, and how it's applied. He seems stuck in the 20th C and arguing with those people, instead of the comments he's replying to.

Gender is like personality. Just as no two people share the same personality, no two people belong to the same gender. We can of course group people in loose sorts of ways by similarities in personality and gender behavior. The same is true of the concept of biological sex. — Joshs

1. Then Gender is pointless and we not even discuss it; and
2. No. If you are under the impression an actual biological distinction, on which healthcare and the propagation of a sexually dimorphic species relies as facts about them I am unsure that is a view to be taken too seriously... Feels like Phil. Twitter type of things to say.
3. If Gender is that mutable and useless as a descriptor or label, can you explain the "unreasonable effectiveness" of using sex terms in their, lets call it, adversarial form.

Just to outright answer your question, you're asking me to prove a negative here. You did not provide anything which supports the assertion of those facts being moral. You just... feel that way ;)
------
hehe, Ok. Well, I've thought through your clarifier and gone back to the full post.
I think I was holding back on how much this is Emotivist (its in a see-through bag, it seems).

"obligate" far exceeds even your clarifying statement, by a margin that puts it squarely in emotivist territory. You are letting me know your emotional stance on the fact that human cognize their harm. I re-present it here, more fully, to point this out more fully:

Anyway, simply put: (1) it is a fact of the matter that every natural being is inseparable from the natural world; (2) natural beings capable of normativity require reasons (i.e. facts/evidence-based claims) for doing things as a rule and for not doings as a rule; (3) normativity that specifically concerns the species' defects (i.e. vulnerabilities to harm / suffering) of natural beings, however, is moral (i.e. obligates natural beings to care for one another) insofar as natural beings are cognizant (how can they not be?) of their species' defects as such; (4) and in the normative framework of moral naturalism, (our) species' defects function as moral facts¹ which provide reasons² (i.e. claims (e.g. "I do this³ because² 'not to do this' can/will harm¹ her")) for species-members (us) to care for³ – take care of³ – (our) species' defects as a rule we give ourselves. — 180 Proof

The underlined here, is now the very specific place that you smuggle in the claim, avoiding emotive language. But, unfortunately, (2) shows quite clearly that the framework relies entirely on your personal feeling that our 'species defects' matter to a degree that demands normative responses.

The bolded is where you may be able to set me right, my having to backtrack on all the above:

What do you mean "give ourselves" when earlier, you're attempting to outline a natural obligation which is not a rule we give ourselves - as the reason for acting per this framework? Could you clarify how moral facts (i.e as a reason, this must be inarguable - because that's what a moral fact is.. A reason) require some further rule for their observation, beyond the reason they provide in and of themselves?