Thanks for this response to my earlier comments on your “How many genders” post. And my apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this response of yours. The whole topic is a rather complex issue and I have been somewhat restricted to a smartphone which really wasn’t sufficient to deal with it.
However, while I think you make a number of good points – which I’ll get into in a bit and which may justify something in the way of a compromise position – I still think you’re conflating sex and gender. Seems to me that either you’re being careless or sloppy, or you’re doing so intentionally, or you’re engaging in “motivated reasoning”. For instance, your “conclusion” section says:
AP: “Is Gender Just on a Spectrum from Male to Female?
Not even remotely.”
And your concluding paragraph here says, “And that number, three, is where we are with gender.” Which links to your earlier post which says, “The number of genders is three: Male, Female, and Other.”
But saying “three genders” is what makes it a spectrum: two end points and something in between, however you may want to order them. For example, see the Google/OxfordLanguages definition:
“spectrum (noun): used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points.”
Nothing in between the end points is a binary; some thing(s) there is a spectrum.
So you may want to do what Hippiesq suggested in the comments here: use “gender” “as a description of femininity versus masculinity in personalities”. And you may also wish to deep six the use of “male” and “female” as genders, and use “masculine” and “feminine” as both she and the late great US Justice Scalia suggest:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
In addition to which, you might also want to pay close attention to what philosopher Will Durant has to say about Voltaire’s, “if you wish to converse with me then define your terms”:
Although I don’t see that you picked up on that idea when I’d broached it in your “how many genders” post.
In any case, we might start on that course with a definition for “sex”. While I’m glad to see that you more or less endorse “Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions” for “sex”, those really are not the standard biological definitions promulgated in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. See:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
In which case we say, biologists say, that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. Which knocks into a cocked hat your assertion, and that of many others, that less than 2% of us are “biologically indeterminate”. I guestimate that some third of us sexless at any one time, primarily the prepubescent.
But a big part of the problem – your “protracted, angry dialogue about how the binning is supposed to work” – is largely due to the fact that many if not most people are too emotionally attached to, if not psychologically and intellectually crippled by, the quite risibly unscientific “idea” that everyone has to have a sex.
But that then brings us around to the question of defining gender. In which case, I think that even you would agree -- as you've illustrated -- that there are many traits that are sexually dimorphic, that show significant degrees of correlation with our sexes, but more with one sex than the other. Which many people – including Hippiesq, Scalia, WHO, the BMJ, and, arguably, the progenitor of the concept (Stoller) – all accept, more or less, as different genders:
However, I think you have a valid point in arguing or suggesting – even if imperfectly, more on which later – that there are many traits or trait values that no male and no female exhibits: the correlation between those traits and “male” or “female” is zero. In which case one might endorse your view, at least a modification of it, that there are three genders: masculine, feminine, and “genderless”. Even if that latter is something of a contradiction in terms – something can’t be both A and Not-A.
But for example and to address that “imperfectly”, I think that that was probably what you were getting at with your “Bimodal Continuum” graph, your “joint probability distribution”. However, you show an overlap which means that there are some trait values – the spectrum or range of values on the X axis – that are exhibited or manifested by BOTH male AND female SEXES. I think what you want to say is that, at least for some traits and trait values, the intersex will have some trait values that no males (sex) and no females (sex) exhibit or possess.
More particularly and for a detailed example of that latter case, IF all males (sex) had heights between 60 and 66 inches (5’ and 5’ 6”), and IF all females (sex) had heights between 48 and 54 inches (4’ and 4’ 6”) and IF all sexless people (including the intersex) had heights between 54.1 and 59.9 inches (4’ 6.1” and 4’ 11.9”) THEN there are some trait values that no male and no female exhibits. Ergo that height range is neither a masculine height (60 to 66 inches) nor a feminine height (48 to 54 inches).
Though not quite sure, to elaborate on that idea of a contradiction in terms, whether it’s more reasonable to say that there are three genders (each a sub-spectrum) – i.e., masculine, feminine, and neither. Or whether it is better to say – for example, as you’re apparently suggesting, at least in your more credible or intended arguments – that there are those who have a masculine gender on some dimensions (traits) of a multidimensional gender spectrum, and who have a feminine gender on other dimensions (traits) of that multidimensional gender spectrum, and who might be genderless on other dimensions (traits).
However, part of the problem, as the hypothetical heights example suggests, is that many don’t realize that there is a great deal of variation in the overlap between those joint probability distributions. Many – like intelligence – show next to none whereas many others are substantially greater to the point of being no overlap at all. As I say, bit of a murky concept but it helps to be clear on the mathematics involved, particularly the statistics. And likewise with defining one’s terms – kind of like anchoring oneself to solid ground before going down any rabbit holes. Largely Voltaire’s point and Durant’s elaborations thereon.
This is interesting, but I have a question. Are you discussing "gender" as a synonym for sex, which it used to be (back in the day, a survey or even a document you might fill out at the doctor's office might use the word "gender" with the choice of male or female), or as a description of femininity versus masculinity in personalities, which seems to be the way "gender" is used more often today? Assuming it's the former, this essay makes sense to me. I would agree that sex is not on a spectrum, but rather there are males, females, and a rare group of people with dsds that make it rather impossible to determine whether they are male or female so one could say they are neither or both, or give them the right to choose their sex. (The vast majority of people with dsds are clearly male or female, but, according to the scientific articles I've seen, about .02% of people have dsds that render their sex unclear). There is no spectrum, but rather different types of males (more or less effeminate or masculine), different types of females (more or less effeminate or masculine), and a much smaller group of those who cannot readily be said to be male or female.
Well, gender was never *exactly* a synonym for sex, but has always had a layer of societal interpretation on top. Decades ago, society tried very hard to bin people past the age of two as male or female, and now society is having a protracted, angry dialogue about how the binning is supposed to work.
That clarified it, and I'm good with your number - 3 - male, female and "other." I just think using "gender" rather than sex can possibly muddy the waters for the (very good) point you're making , mainly because gender has become such a loaded term.
Thanks for this response to my earlier comments on your “How many genders” post. And my apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this response of yours. The whole topic is a rather complex issue and I have been somewhat restricted to a smartphone which really wasn’t sufficient to deal with it.
However, while I think you make a number of good points – which I’ll get into in a bit and which may justify something in the way of a compromise position – I still think you’re conflating sex and gender. Seems to me that either you’re being careless or sloppy, or you’re doing so intentionally, or you’re engaging in “motivated reasoning”. For instance, your “conclusion” section says:
AP: “Is Gender Just on a Spectrum from Male to Female?
Not even remotely.”
And your concluding paragraph here says, “And that number, three, is where we are with gender.” Which links to your earlier post which says, “The number of genders is three: Male, Female, and Other.”
But saying “three genders” is what makes it a spectrum: two end points and something in between, however you may want to order them. For example, see the Google/OxfordLanguages definition:
“spectrum (noun): used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points.”
Nothing in between the end points is a binary; some thing(s) there is a spectrum.
So you may want to do what Hippiesq suggested in the comments here: use “gender” “as a description of femininity versus masculinity in personalities”. And you may also wish to deep six the use of “male” and “female” as genders, and use “masculine” and “feminine” as both she and the late great US Justice Scalia suggest:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
In addition to which, you might also want to pay close attention to what philosopher Will Durant has to say about Voltaire’s, “if you wish to converse with me then define your terms”:
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
Although I don’t see that you picked up on that idea when I’d broached it in your “how many genders” post.
In any case, we might start on that course with a definition for “sex”. While I’m glad to see that you more or less endorse “Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions” for “sex”, those really are not the standard biological definitions promulgated in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. See:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
In which case we say, biologists say, that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. Which knocks into a cocked hat your assertion, and that of many others, that less than 2% of us are “biologically indeterminate”. I guestimate that some third of us sexless at any one time, primarily the prepubescent.
But a big part of the problem – your “protracted, angry dialogue about how the binning is supposed to work” – is largely due to the fact that many if not most people are too emotionally attached to, if not psychologically and intellectually crippled by, the quite risibly unscientific “idea” that everyone has to have a sex.
But that then brings us around to the question of defining gender. In which case, I think that even you would agree -- as you've illustrated -- that there are many traits that are sexually dimorphic, that show significant degrees of correlation with our sexes, but more with one sex than the other. Which many people – including Hippiesq, Scalia, WHO, the BMJ, and, arguably, the progenitor of the concept (Stoller) – all accept, more or less, as different genders:
https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
https://www.perlego.com/book/1505189/sex-and-gender-the-development-of-masculinity-and-femininity-pdf
However, I think you have a valid point in arguing or suggesting – even if imperfectly, more on which later – that there are many traits or trait values that no male and no female exhibits: the correlation between those traits and “male” or “female” is zero. In which case one might endorse your view, at least a modification of it, that there are three genders: masculine, feminine, and “genderless”. Even if that latter is something of a contradiction in terms – something can’t be both A and Not-A.
But for example and to address that “imperfectly”, I think that that was probably what you were getting at with your “Bimodal Continuum” graph, your “joint probability distribution”. However, you show an overlap which means that there are some trait values – the spectrum or range of values on the X axis – that are exhibited or manifested by BOTH male AND female SEXES. I think what you want to say is that, at least for some traits and trait values, the intersex will have some trait values that no males (sex) and no females (sex) exhibit or possess.
More particularly and for a detailed example of that latter case, IF all males (sex) had heights between 60 and 66 inches (5’ and 5’ 6”), and IF all females (sex) had heights between 48 and 54 inches (4’ and 4’ 6”) and IF all sexless people (including the intersex) had heights between 54.1 and 59.9 inches (4’ 6.1” and 4’ 11.9”) THEN there are some trait values that no male and no female exhibits. Ergo that height range is neither a masculine height (60 to 66 inches) nor a feminine height (48 to 54 inches).
Though not quite sure, to elaborate on that idea of a contradiction in terms, whether it’s more reasonable to say that there are three genders (each a sub-spectrum) – i.e., masculine, feminine, and neither. Or whether it is better to say – for example, as you’re apparently suggesting, at least in your more credible or intended arguments – that there are those who have a masculine gender on some dimensions (traits) of a multidimensional gender spectrum, and who have a feminine gender on other dimensions (traits) of that multidimensional gender spectrum, and who might be genderless on other dimensions (traits).
However, part of the problem, as the hypothetical heights example suggests, is that many don’t realize that there is a great deal of variation in the overlap between those joint probability distributions. Many – like intelligence – show next to none whereas many others are substantially greater to the point of being no overlap at all. As I say, bit of a murky concept but it helps to be clear on the mathematics involved, particularly the statistics. And likewise with defining one’s terms – kind of like anchoring oneself to solid ground before going down any rabbit holes. Largely Voltaire’s point and Durant’s elaborations thereon.
This is interesting, but I have a question. Are you discussing "gender" as a synonym for sex, which it used to be (back in the day, a survey or even a document you might fill out at the doctor's office might use the word "gender" with the choice of male or female), or as a description of femininity versus masculinity in personalities, which seems to be the way "gender" is used more often today? Assuming it's the former, this essay makes sense to me. I would agree that sex is not on a spectrum, but rather there are males, females, and a rare group of people with dsds that make it rather impossible to determine whether they are male or female so one could say they are neither or both, or give them the right to choose their sex. (The vast majority of people with dsds are clearly male or female, but, according to the scientific articles I've seen, about .02% of people have dsds that render their sex unclear). There is no spectrum, but rather different types of males (more or less effeminate or masculine), different types of females (more or less effeminate or masculine), and a much smaller group of those who cannot readily be said to be male or female.
Well, gender was never *exactly* a synonym for sex, but has always had a layer of societal interpretation on top. Decades ago, society tried very hard to bin people past the age of two as male or female, and now society is having a protracted, angry dialogue about how the binning is supposed to work.
I'd say we probably agree on the whole. But if it helps to clarify my position, you might check out my post on how many genders there are: https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/how-many-genders-are-there
That clarified it, and I'm good with your number - 3 - male, female and "other." I just think using "gender" rather than sex can possibly muddy the waters for the (very good) point you're making , mainly because gender has become such a loaded term.