> Alistair: “Since Khelif and Lin were disqualified based on blood tests, it is fair to assume that they fall into the category of having XY chromosomes and a DSD.”
Evolutionary biologist Emma Hilton has been arguing, on some evidence, that the DSD Khelif has is probably 5-ARD:
Of note, Hilton says: “But the baby lacks a protein needed to make a penis grow. This means that baby’s external genitals can develop as female-looking. Hence, baby might be registered at birth as female.”
But that “registered at birth as female” based on the “baby’s external genitals” is probably the basis for the IOC accepting that Khelif qualifies for women’s boxing. Which, of course, conflicts with the XX/XY criteria of the IBA.
For instance, you say: “None of those facts matter in terms of Khelif’s physical abilities except the first one, ‘was born female’, which Khelif’s blood tests showed is not true.”
But it is neither “external genitals” nor karyotype that are, according to standard biological definitions for the sexes, what qualifies anyone – any organism for that matter – as male or female. Those definitions STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types, those with neither – like most intersex and probably like Khelif – are then, ipso facto, sexless:
Complex issue and I sure don’t have a solid handle on all of the different DSDs. But there seems to be several different variations of DSDs with female phenotypes – i.e., genitalia, particularly though not exclusively at birth – and male genotypes – i.e., XY karyotypes:
From the description of some photos in the first case (CAIS):
Wikipedia (CAIS): “Persons with a complete androgen insensitivity have a typical female external phenotype, despite having a 46,XY karyotype.”
Most seem infertile – probably like Khelif – and are then, by those strict biological definitions, qualified as sexless. But not all of them as you yourself pointed out:
> Alistair: “A person with 46XY DSD has even given birth to daughter (who had the same condition) ….”
From the NCBI article: "Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development. .... A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.":
She clearly had the “functional ovaries” that are the sine qua non for “female”, although the IBA – and many others – would probably call her a “male”.
So, bottom line, most DSDs of the “XY female” variety are then sexless – infertile, incapable of producing either sperm or ova – while some might actually qualify as either male or female. But I think that emphasizes the benefits of those standard biological definitions.
You may wish to take a gander at my longer essay that provides some justification for those biological definitions, particularly as it is based, in turn, on an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Mechanisms in Science:
That's a pretty comprehensive comment, maybe you should write a post on it yourself! I've read Dr Hilton's comments on the Khelif situation, she was on Graham Linehan's podcast too I think.
The principal problem is that the IOC doesn't seem to have any method in place for checking a participant's gender/sex beyond what's stated on their passport. The IBA, on the other hand, laid out very clear criteria for what qualifies someone as male or female and those were ignored, the IOC going as far as to withdraw recognition of their authority.
Lots of people focused on the fact that neither Khelif nor Lin identify as trans, even though they have XY chromosomes so they are biologically male, but as Hilton and others have said, their sex was presumably recorded incorrectly at birth and never amended. But since the IOC only requires a participant to have a female passport, and it is possible to change one's gender on your passport, the same situation COULD play out with trans athletes. It all seems to be about setting a precedent, or trying to.
> "That's a pretty comprehensive comment, maybe you should write a post on it yourself!"
Thanks -- I've been mulling it over. I've posted that comment as a Note which is sort of a mini-post that I might elaborate on later.
> "... even though they have XY chromosomes so they are biologically male ..."
Kinda think you're missing the point, though many people are. That Khelif & Lin may have XY chromosomes is NOT what makes them male. They're NOT "biologically male" -- they may have a male genotype -- i.e., the set of chromosomes TYPICAL of males -- but it is not the genotype that makes someone a male or a female:
Try reading and thinking about the standard biological definitions for the sexes, and even popular and more reputable dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED):
From the first link above, the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
That is ALL that "male" and "female" MEANS to reputable biologists: currently producing small gametes or large gametes. Khelif and company -- most of the intersex -- are, probably, neither male nor female because they don't have functional gonads of either of two types, because they can't produce either sperm or ova.
I understood what you wrote but I think you're misinterpreting it slightly, because male and female don't have to denote organisms that are CURRENTLY producing gametes. That would mean that prepubescent children, post-menopausal women and anyone else who for whatever reason is infertile is sexless, which obviously isn't true.
Going by the chromosomes a person has is a perfectly viable and unintrusive way of establishing their sex - why would it matter whether a participant is fertile or not? It's just a question of whether they went through male or female puberty
> "... but I think you're misinterpreting it slightly ..."
Don't think so at all. That IS standard terminology and usage in the biological community -- even if grifters and charlatans like Colin Wright & Alex Byrne "think" otherwise. Byrne writing on Wright's Substack:
Byrne: “[evolutionary biologist and transwoman Joan] Roughgarden writes: 'To a biologist, ‘male’ means making small gametes, and ‘female’ means making large gametes. Period! By definition, the smaller of the two gametes is called a sperm, and the larger an egg. Beyond gamete size, biologists don’t recognize any other universal difference between male and female.'
‘Making’ does not mean currently producing [yep, it does], but (something like) has the function to make.”
Note the "universal difference". But it seems rather “presumptuous”, at best, for a mere philosopher – and not even a philosopher of biology – to gainsay a fairly reputable biologist laying out exactly what are the standard biological definitions for the sexes, ones endorsed by any number of reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries.
> "... anyone else who for whatever reason is infertile is sexless, which obviously isn't true."
You're begging the question -- assuming the conclusion of an argument about what it takes to qualify as male and female:
You, and too many others, seem to "think" that the sexes are participation trophies, that everyone has to have one from conception to death, that "sex is immutable!!11!! 🙄" -- a mantra, an article of faith, to match the transloonies' "trans women are women". Pots and kettles ...
Standard biological definitions for the sexes stipulate "functional gonads" as the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify for membership cards in the sex categories. As far as reputable biologists and philosophers are concerned, "produces gametes (right now)" is the "essence" of male and female. It is a PROPERTY -- NOT an identity -- that is shared across literally millions of species -- from red seaweed to redwood trees, from worms to whales; no exceptions.
For example, see again the views of Joan Roughgarden, quoted in Paul Griffiths’ “What are biological sexes?”, something you might want to try reading:
PG: “But no general definition of sexes can rely on these features [chromosomes, sex organs, hormones] because, as Roughgarden puts it, ‘the criteria for classifying an organism as male or female have to work with worms to whales, with red seaweed to redwood trees.’ ....”
> "... Going by the chromosomes a person has is a perfectly viable and unintrusive way of establishing their sex ..."
Chromosomes tend to correlate strongly with particular sexes, but they are NOT the defining criteria. They are simply "proxies", but not infallible ones -- the case you linked to about the XY female who had given birth several times is proof of that:
For example, there are billions if not trillions of cases of organisms in all of the millions of anisogamous species on the planet -- including the human one -- which are male or female but which don't possess either XX or XY chromosomes:
Though I agree with you that, as far as women's sports are concerned, it is immaterial "whether a participant is fertile or not". But the problematic claim is that XX uniquely defines and is determinative of "female" -- which is incoherent twaddle and antiscientific horse crap. Maybe the IOC should restrict women's sports to those who have or had ovaries, whether they're functional or not ...
> Alistair: “Since Khelif and Lin were disqualified based on blood tests, it is fair to assume that they fall into the category of having XY chromosomes and a DSD.”
Evolutionary biologist Emma Hilton has been arguing, on some evidence, that the DSD Khelif has is probably 5-ARD:
https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1819402288789590246
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%CE%B1-Reductase_2_deficiency
Of note, Hilton says: “But the baby lacks a protein needed to make a penis grow. This means that baby’s external genitals can develop as female-looking. Hence, baby might be registered at birth as female.”
Hilton seems a going concern of late – some extra links to her recent commentary here: https://karadansky.substack.com/p/ffs-friday-developmental-biologist
But that “registered at birth as female” based on the “baby’s external genitals” is probably the basis for the IOC accepting that Khelif qualifies for women’s boxing. Which, of course, conflicts with the XX/XY criteria of the IBA.
For instance, you say: “None of those facts matter in terms of Khelif’s physical abilities except the first one, ‘was born female’, which Khelif’s blood tests showed is not true.”
But it is neither “external genitals” nor karyotype that are, according to standard biological definitions for the sexes, what qualifies anyone – any organism for that matter – as male or female. Those definitions STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types, those with neither – like most intersex and probably like Khelif – are then, ipso facto, sexless:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
Complex issue and I sure don’t have a solid handle on all of the different DSDs. But there seems to be several different variations of DSDs with female phenotypes – i.e., genitalia, particularly though not exclusively at birth – and male genotypes – i.e., XY karyotypes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#Physical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis
From the description of some photos in the first case (CAIS):
Wikipedia (CAIS): “Persons with a complete androgen insensitivity have a typical female external phenotype, despite having a 46,XY karyotype.”
Most seem infertile – probably like Khelif – and are then, by those strict biological definitions, qualified as sexless. But not all of them as you yourself pointed out:
> Alistair: “A person with 46XY DSD has even given birth to daughter (who had the same condition) ….”
From the NCBI article: "Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development. .... A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
She clearly had the “functional ovaries” that are the sine qua non for “female”, although the IBA – and many others – would probably call her a “male”.
So, bottom line, most DSDs of the “XY female” variety are then sexless – infertile, incapable of producing either sperm or ova – while some might actually qualify as either male or female. But I think that emphasizes the benefits of those standard biological definitions.
You may wish to take a gander at my longer essay that provides some justification for those biological definitions, particularly as it is based, in turn, on an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Mechanisms in Science:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas
That's a pretty comprehensive comment, maybe you should write a post on it yourself! I've read Dr Hilton's comments on the Khelif situation, she was on Graham Linehan's podcast too I think.
The principal problem is that the IOC doesn't seem to have any method in place for checking a participant's gender/sex beyond what's stated on their passport. The IBA, on the other hand, laid out very clear criteria for what qualifies someone as male or female and those were ignored, the IOC going as far as to withdraw recognition of their authority.
Lots of people focused on the fact that neither Khelif nor Lin identify as trans, even though they have XY chromosomes so they are biologically male, but as Hilton and others have said, their sex was presumably recorded incorrectly at birth and never amended. But since the IOC only requires a participant to have a female passport, and it is possible to change one's gender on your passport, the same situation COULD play out with trans athletes. It all seems to be about setting a precedent, or trying to.
> "That's a pretty comprehensive comment, maybe you should write a post on it yourself!"
Thanks -- I've been mulling it over. I've posted that comment as a Note which is sort of a mini-post that I might elaborate on later.
> "... even though they have XY chromosomes so they are biologically male ..."
Kinda think you're missing the point, though many people are. That Khelif & Lin may have XY chromosomes is NOT what makes them male. They're NOT "biologically male" -- they may have a male genotype -- i.e., the set of chromosomes TYPICAL of males -- but it is not the genotype that makes someone a male or a female:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype
Try reading and thinking about the standard biological definitions for the sexes, and even popular and more reputable dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED):
OED: "male, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."; https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
OED: "female, adjective: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes"; https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https:/en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
And the same thing in many biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
From the first link above, the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
That is ALL that "male" and "female" MEANS to reputable biologists: currently producing small gametes or large gametes. Khelif and company -- most of the intersex -- are, probably, neither male nor female because they don't have functional gonads of either of two types, because they can't produce either sperm or ova.
I understood what you wrote but I think you're misinterpreting it slightly, because male and female don't have to denote organisms that are CURRENTLY producing gametes. That would mean that prepubescent children, post-menopausal women and anyone else who for whatever reason is infertile is sexless, which obviously isn't true.
Going by the chromosomes a person has is a perfectly viable and unintrusive way of establishing their sex - why would it matter whether a participant is fertile or not? It's just a question of whether they went through male or female puberty
> "... but I think you're misinterpreting it slightly ..."
Don't think so at all. That IS standard terminology and usage in the biological community -- even if grifters and charlatans like Colin Wright & Alex Byrne "think" otherwise. Byrne writing on Wright's Substack:
Byrne: “[evolutionary biologist and transwoman Joan] Roughgarden writes: 'To a biologist, ‘male’ means making small gametes, and ‘female’ means making large gametes. Period! By definition, the smaller of the two gametes is called a sperm, and the larger an egg. Beyond gamete size, biologists don’t recognize any other universal difference between male and female.'
‘Making’ does not mean currently producing [yep, it does], but (something like) has the function to make.”
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/exposing-sex-pseudoscience-in-american
Note the "universal difference". But it seems rather “presumptuous”, at best, for a mere philosopher – and not even a philosopher of biology – to gainsay a fairly reputable biologist laying out exactly what are the standard biological definitions for the sexes, ones endorsed by any number of reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries.
> "... anyone else who for whatever reason is infertile is sexless, which obviously isn't true."
You're begging the question -- assuming the conclusion of an argument about what it takes to qualify as male and female:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
You, and too many others, seem to "think" that the sexes are participation trophies, that everyone has to have one from conception to death, that "sex is immutable!!11!! 🙄" -- a mantra, an article of faith, to match the transloonies' "trans women are women". Pots and kettles ...
Standard biological definitions for the sexes stipulate "functional gonads" as the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify for membership cards in the sex categories. As far as reputable biologists and philosophers are concerned, "produces gametes (right now)" is the "essence" of male and female. It is a PROPERTY -- NOT an identity -- that is shared across literally millions of species -- from red seaweed to redwood trees, from worms to whales; no exceptions.
For example, see again the views of Joan Roughgarden, quoted in Paul Griffiths’ “What are biological sexes?”, something you might want to try reading:
PG: “But no general definition of sexes can rely on these features [chromosomes, sex organs, hormones] because, as Roughgarden puts it, ‘the criteria for classifying an organism as male or female have to work with worms to whales, with red seaweed to redwood trees.’ ....”
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
> "... Going by the chromosomes a person has is a perfectly viable and unintrusive way of establishing their sex ..."
Chromosomes tend to correlate strongly with particular sexes, but they are NOT the defining criteria. They are simply "proxies", but not infallible ones -- the case you linked to about the XY female who had given birth several times is proof of that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)
For example, there are billions if not trillions of cases of organisms in all of the millions of anisogamous species on the planet -- including the human one -- which are male or female but which don't possess either XX or XY chromosomes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system
Though I agree with you that, as far as women's sports are concerned, it is immaterial "whether a participant is fertile or not". But the problematic claim is that XX uniquely defines and is determinative of "female" -- which is incoherent twaddle and antiscientific horse crap. Maybe the IOC should restrict women's sports to those who have or had ovaries, whether they're functional or not ...
You cannot seriously think I'm going to read all that
"Don't confuse me with the facts", amirite? 🙄
I expect I've read far more of what you've posted than you have of mine ...