I have been following you for a long time. I have followed and read all of Ayan H Ali also, but was heartbroken when she turned Christian.
I started to doubt religion when I was nine years old when somebody in Catholic school tried to convince me that god, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were one. I thought, wait a minute… I asked about it and after some back-and-forth, I was told god works in mysterious ways.
I prayed and searched for god in other religions without any luck. In my late teens, I decided there’s no such thing and I really didn’t feel like I needed a book to tell me what was wrong and what was right. And unlike Ayan Hirsi Ali, my life is full of purpose and awe for nature
I was ostracized and bullied in Boy Scouts along with my two boys after they found out I did not believe in a supreme being. We left the organization (which was very lucky for us). I only have one sister and she’s very religious. Has always been. So about 10 years ago, I sent my saliva to 23 and me and now I get reports on my genes. I have one gene for early Alzheimer’s, which completely makes sense because my mother has the disease, I like cilantro, I am absolutely disgusted when people chew food with their mouth open, etc. Sadly, nothing on the faith gene. Have all research stopped on that? I saw you today in San Francisco, but didn’t have a chance to ask my question. What do we know now about the faith gene?
I admire you much.
With respect and gratitude for all your work and your kindness in handling idiosyncrasy,
Too much too long too selfish huge Ego Mr. Dawkins. I thought with age you will grow into a humble unselfish who does not take himself so seriously regular human being. By the way, you and Darwin were wrong with the evolutionary theory and wrong with the claim that from the point of view of astrophysics and theoretical physics it was proven that GOD does not exist. Just walk yourself backwards with the three critical Pilar’s in the creation of the universe:mass,time and energy. Going backwards when there was no mass nor time but energy, how energy was ticked on or better still, who or what turned on Energy? If you still go backwards when there was no energy,no mass and no time. There was nothing, how can energy developed from nothing?Just accept that someone some entity had to kick off energy,then time, then mass.
A rather unflattering, if accurate and topical portrait of too many "academic scientists" which Wikipedia's synopsis really doesn't do justice to:
Wikipedia: "It was published in October 1972 and its plot tells the story of a group of academic scientists struggling to understand the human tendency towards self-destruction, while the group members gradually become more suspicious and aggressive towards each other."
Somewhat apropos of which, I wonder if you've ever read an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction -- co-authored by Geoff Parker who has an FRS to his name:
Of particular note in the Glossary therein are the definitions for the sexes which really don't comport with -- in fact, that flatly contradict -- those you seem to be championing:
"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."
Likewise in a Springer-Link article and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
What the hell are you talking about? Geoff Parker's definition of the sexes is precisely and exactly my definition as well. Where on Earth did you get the idea that I'd have a problem with it? Repudiate it? Why would you expect me to repudiate the definition that I, and all sensible biologists, follow? You evidently choose to invent what I think rather than bothering to read what I have written, something I'm quite used to by now.
> "You evidently choose to invent what I think rather than bothering to read what I have written, something I'm quite used to by now."
LoL -- something of a late addition there; you might add an ETA (edited to add). But -- with all due respect Professor -- I've read a great deal of what you've written, probably starting with The Blind Watchmaker some 35 years ago, and followed thereafter by The God Delusion and, probably, your critique of Fashionable Nonsense. And various bits and pieces in between -- all something in the way of touchstones, of candles in the dark -- so to speak.
However, I really don't think that you, and too many other "sensible biologists" quite appreciate the import and logical consequences of those standard biological definitions. Speaking of which, and of "what you have written", I'm reminded of several recent posts of yours -- all archived for posterity -- this one in particular:
Which I see that you or one of your minions deleted shortly after I'd posted it, though not before I printed it.
In any case and as I had pointed out there, you more or less explicitly repudiate Parker's definitions and the standard interpretations of them that are common in most of mainstream biology:
Dawkins: "Turner individuals are unambiguous females with no Y chromosome and only one (functioning) X chromosome. They have a vagina and uterus, and their ovaries, if any, are non-functional. Obviously, Klinefelter (always male) and Turner (always female) individuals must be eliminated from counts of intersexes ...."
Unfortunately, you and far too many "sensible biologists" seem to think that someone -- that any organism from any anisogamous species on the planet, and for the last billion years or so -- doesn't actually have to be able to reproduce to qualify as a member of the sex categories. For example, see this letter by a trio of ostensible biologists to the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper but hardly what you'd call a peer-reviewed biological journal:
Hilton: "Sir, Further to the Lib Dem policy of self-identifying one’s gender, sexual reproduction in almost all higher species, including humans, proceeds via fusion of one small and one large gamete (anisogamy). 'Sex' refers to one of the two reproductive roles in this process. Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively. ...."
Though I'm happy to note that Hilton at least subsequently repudiated that claptrap, more or less, in favour of the standard biological definitions, even if her partners in crime have doubled-down on that bogus and quite unscientific definition: https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1488523777042432008
But I rather doubt that gonads of "past or future functionality" are going to be of much use in the process of reproduction. You and too many other "biologists" are clearly losing sight of the "essence" of "male" and "female" -- i.e., the actual production of large or small gametes.
If the ability to reproduce isn't an essential element of what it means it means to be male and female then you're just opening the door to claims that sex is spectrum, a social category, a matter of "self-identification". Apropos of which and ICYMI, you might note that the erstwhile reputable biological journal "Cell" recently asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
Related thereto, physicist Sean Carroll somewhat recently argued -- with some justification -- that those biological definitions were mere "terms of art" within biology, and shouldn't have much if any bearing in social circumstances:
Too many people -- including too many "biologists" -- don't seem to have a flaming clue that there is no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female". Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z -- none of our definitions qualify as gospel truth. But some are substantially more useful than others -- kinda think you're more a part of the problem than of the solution in not recognizing those facts.
You might note this recent article in the Wiley Online Library by a trio of reputable biologists who emphasize the same point:
WOL: "For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
Their reference is to an article by Paul Griffiths, lately of the University of Sydney, philosopher of science, co-author of "Genetics and Philosophy":
You might also have some interest in my own post “Rerum cognoscere causas” [To understand the causes of things] on some of those solid philosophical justifications for that “interpretation” – mostly based on a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on “Mechanisms in Science [and biology]”:
What exactly is your point? I STILL don't know exactly what you think should worry me, or Geoff Parker, in any of the above. At times, I wondered whether you could possibly be making the trivial point that not all individual humans actually produce gametes at all, either large or small. When up against pedants, we take care of this obvious point by using a word like "potential". A worker bee may produce no gametes. But she has the POTENTIAL to produce macrogametes, and if raised on a different diet she would have been a queen. Embryos too young to make gametes have the potential to do so. Old women no longer produce macrogametes, but they have the equipment that once did.
Drosophila, as befits members of the Order Diptera have two wings instead of the usual four The rare Bithorax mutant has four wings. Should they be banished from the genus Drosophila or even the Order Diptera? Of course not. Homo sapiens is a bipedal ape. Freak babies are occasionally born with three legs. Does this mean they are not human? Of course not. Does it make it incorrect to say our species is bipedal? Of course not.
In any case, you and I should both apologise for banging on about this in the Comments section after The Delegate's Tale, to which it is irrelevant.
> "... the trivial point that not all individual humans actually produce gametes at all, either large or small."
Hardly "trivial"; you're begging the question. The issue, as I tried to point out, is that "producing gametes" -- according to standard biological definitions which you might take a close look at -- is THE necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as male and female. The SAME way that being 13 to 19 is the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a teenager; someone of 45 can't "self-identify" as one, at least without being thought madder than a hatter.
> "When up against pedants, we take care of this obvious point by using a word like 'potential'. ...."
Where -- exactly -- do Parker's definitions say ANYTHING about "potential"? How about the Oxford Dictionary of Biology? How much "potential" do CAIS people have of -- ever -- producing either sperm or ova?
A dog chasing a rabbit has the "potential" to catch it, but if he stops to pee then he doesn't. It's the actuality -- the actual, not the potential ability to reproduce -- that is the "essential" element. Which you and too many others -- including various transloonie nutcases -- are trying to sweep under the carpet.
> "Homo sapiens is a bipedal ape. Freak babies are occasionally born with three legs. Does this mean they are not human?"
False analogy. Bipedality is an "accidental" property of all humans, a typical one, not an "essential" one -- a fairly durable philosophical principle that you may wish to read up on:
Clearly there are people who are not "bipedal" -- bipedality is an accidental property of the category "human". The essential one is, to a first approximation, compatible karyotypes -- which those missing a leg or two presumably still have ...
> "... apologise for banging on about this in the Comments section after The Delegate's Tale, to which it is irrelevant. ...."
Maybe. But maybe you should start by apologizing for deleting my comment and your whole post on "Sex, Lies, and Natural Selection":
If you're not going to address challenges where they're relevant and topical then I don't see it beyond the pale, or the "rules of engagement" to raise them where they may be less so.
LoL -- expected better of you there Professor. Particularly given your "Blind Watchmaker" quip about taxonomy being "the most rancorously ill-tempered of biological fields" [pg. 275].
But you might ask Parker -- and Lehtonen, and the authors of the Oxford Dictionary of Biology entries on the sexes -- about that. But you might want to take a close look at how definitions are created in logic, philosophy, and mathematics:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
I expect any biologist worth their salt is going to have some appreciation and understanding of that principle. Though they seem rather thin on the ground -- for example, see this article by the well-regarded Belgian virologist Marc van Regenmortel:
Regenmortel: "Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students."
Though he's apparently retired, but I had done so several years ago. One of his more salient and relevant observations:
PG: "It is, indeed, all about the various different things we call ‘definitions’ and the roles of these various things in science and in practical life. That’s such a complex topic that it is not surprising that so many people – philosophers included – make such a mess of it. Roughly my own view is that in science we shape our definitions to fit the phenomena we investigate, and that definitions should be evaluated by whether they form an integral part of a successful theory of some class of phenomena."
The biological definitions are rather clearly "designed" to reflect that essential element. You might try reading that article of Parker's and Lehtonen's, particularly this bit from the abstract:
"The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become."
Some reason to argue -- as they are clearly doing -- that anisogamy is the root cause for every last bit of sexual dimorphism -- physiological and psychological -- on the planet. And for the last billion years or so.
Dear Mr Dawkins -
I have been following you for a long time. I have followed and read all of Ayan H Ali also, but was heartbroken when she turned Christian.
I started to doubt religion when I was nine years old when somebody in Catholic school tried to convince me that god, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were one. I thought, wait a minute… I asked about it and after some back-and-forth, I was told god works in mysterious ways.
I prayed and searched for god in other religions without any luck. In my late teens, I decided there’s no such thing and I really didn’t feel like I needed a book to tell me what was wrong and what was right. And unlike Ayan Hirsi Ali, my life is full of purpose and awe for nature
I was ostracized and bullied in Boy Scouts along with my two boys after they found out I did not believe in a supreme being. We left the organization (which was very lucky for us). I only have one sister and she’s very religious. Has always been. So about 10 years ago, I sent my saliva to 23 and me and now I get reports on my genes. I have one gene for early Alzheimer’s, which completely makes sense because my mother has the disease, I like cilantro, I am absolutely disgusted when people chew food with their mouth open, etc. Sadly, nothing on the faith gene. Have all research stopped on that? I saw you today in San Francisco, but didn’t have a chance to ask my question. What do we know now about the faith gene?
I admire you much.
With respect and gratitude for all your work and your kindness in handling idiosyncrasy,
Tavi
Too much too long too selfish huge Ego Mr. Dawkins. I thought with age you will grow into a humble unselfish who does not take himself so seriously regular human being. By the way, you and Darwin were wrong with the evolutionary theory and wrong with the claim that from the point of view of astrophysics and theoretical physics it was proven that GOD does not exist. Just walk yourself backwards with the three critical Pilar’s in the creation of the universe:mass,time and energy. Going backwards when there was no mass nor time but energy, how energy was ticked on or better still, who or what turned on Energy? If you still go backwards when there was no energy,no mass and no time. There was nothing, how can energy developed from nothing?Just accept that someone some entity had to kick off energy,then time, then mass.
There is not one gene in the entire human genome that codes for faith.I know it because I am a molecular geneticist.sorry.
You are definitely a carrier of a very healthy faith gene. I think that is sad.
This was a great article. I was unaware that you have written an autobiography. Excellent. I'm off to Amazon.
ICYMI, you might have some interest in a related "tale", Arthur Koestler's "The Call-Girls: A Tragi-Comedy with Prologue and Epilogue":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Call-Girls
A rather unflattering, if accurate and topical portrait of too many "academic scientists" which Wikipedia's synopsis really doesn't do justice to:
Wikipedia: "It was published in October 1972 and its plot tells the story of a group of academic scientists struggling to understand the human tendency towards self-destruction, while the group members gradually become more suspicious and aggressive towards each other."
Somewhat apropos of which, I wonder if you've ever read an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction -- co-authored by Geoff Parker who has an FRS to his name:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
Of particular note in the Glossary therein are the definitions for the sexes which really don't comport with -- in fact, that flatly contradict -- those you seem to be championing:
"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."
Likewise in a Springer-Link article and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
You prepared to explicitly repudiate them?
What the hell are you talking about? Geoff Parker's definition of the sexes is precisely and exactly my definition as well. Where on Earth did you get the idea that I'd have a problem with it? Repudiate it? Why would you expect me to repudiate the definition that I, and all sensible biologists, follow? You evidently choose to invent what I think rather than bothering to read what I have written, something I'm quite used to by now.
Richard Dawkins
> "You evidently choose to invent what I think rather than bothering to read what I have written, something I'm quite used to by now."
LoL -- something of a late addition there; you might add an ETA (edited to add). But -- with all due respect Professor -- I've read a great deal of what you've written, probably starting with The Blind Watchmaker some 35 years ago, and followed thereafter by The God Delusion and, probably, your critique of Fashionable Nonsense. And various bits and pieces in between -- all something in the way of touchstones, of candles in the dark -- so to speak.
However, I really don't think that you, and too many other "sensible biologists" quite appreciate the import and logical consequences of those standard biological definitions. Speaking of which, and of "what you have written", I'm reminded of several recent posts of yours -- all archived for posterity -- this one in particular:
Substack_Dawkins_SexLiesAndNaturalSelection_Y240426A_All_1A
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1snDjbAsVKqqg_ZYhOIdFQn3mX74UYduW/view?usp=sharing
Which I see that you or one of your minions deleted shortly after I'd posted it, though not before I printed it.
In any case and as I had pointed out there, you more or less explicitly repudiate Parker's definitions and the standard interpretations of them that are common in most of mainstream biology:
Dawkins: "Turner individuals are unambiguous females with no Y chromosome and only one (functioning) X chromosome. They have a vagina and uterus, and their ovaries, if any, are non-functional. Obviously, Klinefelter (always male) and Turner (always female) individuals must be eliminated from counts of intersexes ...."
https://archive.li/2023.07.29-151435/https:/www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins
Unfortunately, you and far too many "sensible biologists" seem to think that someone -- that any organism from any anisogamous species on the planet, and for the last billion years or so -- doesn't actually have to be able to reproduce to qualify as a member of the sex categories. For example, see this letter by a trio of ostensible biologists to the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper but hardly what you'd call a peer-reviewed biological journal:
Hilton: "Sir, Further to the Lib Dem policy of self-identifying one’s gender, sexual reproduction in almost all higher species, including humans, proceeds via fusion of one small and one large gamete (anisogamy). 'Sex' refers to one of the two reproductive roles in this process. Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively. ...."
https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Though I'm happy to note that Hilton at least subsequently repudiated that claptrap, more or less, in favour of the standard biological definitions, even if her partners in crime have doubled-down on that bogus and quite unscientific definition: https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1488523777042432008
But I rather doubt that gonads of "past or future functionality" are going to be of much use in the process of reproduction. You and too many other "biologists" are clearly losing sight of the "essence" of "male" and "female" -- i.e., the actual production of large or small gametes.
If the ability to reproduce isn't an essential element of what it means it means to be male and female then you're just opening the door to claims that sex is spectrum, a social category, a matter of "self-identification". Apropos of which and ICYMI, you might note that the erstwhile reputable biological journal "Cell" recently asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-sex-a-useful-category
Related thereto, physicist Sean Carroll somewhat recently argued -- with some justification -- that those biological definitions were mere "terms of art" within biology, and shouldn't have much if any bearing in social circumstances:
"Physicist Sean Carroll Doubles Down on Sex Pseudoscience": https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/weekly-recap-524
Too many people -- including too many "biologists" -- don't seem to have a flaming clue that there is no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female". Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z -- none of our definitions qualify as gospel truth. But some are substantially more useful than others -- kinda think you're more a part of the problem than of the solution in not recognizing those facts.
The definitions I've quoted make the production of gametes the "necessary and sufficient condition" for sex category membership -- no gametes, no sex:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
You might note this recent article in the Wiley Online Library by a trio of reputable biologists who emphasize the same point:
WOL: "For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R
Their reference is to an article by Paul Griffiths, lately of the University of Sydney, philosopher of science, co-author of "Genetics and Philosophy":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
And see Griffiths’ earlier post at Aeon:
“Sex Is Real: Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other.”
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
You might also have some interest in my own post “Rerum cognoscere causas” [To understand the causes of things] on some of those solid philosophical justifications for that “interpretation” – mostly based on a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on “Mechanisms in Science [and biology]”:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/win2021/entries/science-mechanisms/#toc
What exactly is your point? I STILL don't know exactly what you think should worry me, or Geoff Parker, in any of the above. At times, I wondered whether you could possibly be making the trivial point that not all individual humans actually produce gametes at all, either large or small. When up against pedants, we take care of this obvious point by using a word like "potential". A worker bee may produce no gametes. But she has the POTENTIAL to produce macrogametes, and if raised on a different diet she would have been a queen. Embryos too young to make gametes have the potential to do so. Old women no longer produce macrogametes, but they have the equipment that once did.
Drosophila, as befits members of the Order Diptera have two wings instead of the usual four The rare Bithorax mutant has four wings. Should they be banished from the genus Drosophila or even the Order Diptera? Of course not. Homo sapiens is a bipedal ape. Freak babies are occasionally born with three legs. Does this mean they are not human? Of course not. Does it make it incorrect to say our species is bipedal? Of course not.
In any case, you and I should both apologise for banging on about this in the Comments section after The Delegate's Tale, to which it is irrelevant.
> "... the trivial point that not all individual humans actually produce gametes at all, either large or small."
Hardly "trivial"; you're begging the question. The issue, as I tried to point out, is that "producing gametes" -- according to standard biological definitions which you might take a close look at -- is THE necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as male and female. The SAME way that being 13 to 19 is the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a teenager; someone of 45 can't "self-identify" as one, at least without being thought madder than a hatter.
> "When up against pedants, we take care of this obvious point by using a word like 'potential'. ...."
Where -- exactly -- do Parker's definitions say ANYTHING about "potential"? How about the Oxford Dictionary of Biology? How much "potential" do CAIS people have of -- ever -- producing either sperm or ova?
A dog chasing a rabbit has the "potential" to catch it, but if he stops to pee then he doesn't. It's the actuality -- the actual, not the potential ability to reproduce -- that is the "essential" element. Which you and too many others -- including various transloonie nutcases -- are trying to sweep under the carpet.
> "Homo sapiens is a bipedal ape. Freak babies are occasionally born with three legs. Does this mean they are not human?"
False analogy. Bipedality is an "accidental" property of all humans, a typical one, not an "essential" one -- a fairly durable philosophical principle that you may wish to read up on:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/accidental-and-essential-properties
Clearly there are people who are not "bipedal" -- bipedality is an accidental property of the category "human". The essential one is, to a first approximation, compatible karyotypes -- which those missing a leg or two presumably still have ...
> "... apologise for banging on about this in the Comments section after The Delegate's Tale, to which it is irrelevant. ...."
Maybe. But maybe you should start by apologizing for deleting my comment and your whole post on "Sex, Lies, and Natural Selection":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1snDjbAsVKqqg_ZYhOIdFQn3mX74UYduW/view
If you're not going to address challenges where they're relevant and topical then I don't see it beyond the pale, or the "rules of engagement" to raise them where they may be less so.
" Where -- exactly -- do Parker's definitions say ANYTHING about "potential"?
I expect Parker thought it too trivially obvious to mention.
LoL -- expected better of you there Professor. Particularly given your "Blind Watchmaker" quip about taxonomy being "the most rancorously ill-tempered of biological fields" [pg. 275].
But you might ask Parker -- and Lehtonen, and the authors of the Oxford Dictionary of Biology entries on the sexes -- about that. But you might want to take a close look at how definitions are created in logic, philosophy, and mathematics:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
I expect any biologist worth their salt is going to have some appreciation and understanding of that principle. Though they seem rather thin on the ground -- for example, see this article by the well-regarded Belgian virologist Marc van Regenmortel:
Regenmortel: "Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309889266_Classes_taxa_and_categories_in_hierarchical_virus_classification_a_review_of_current_debates_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species
You might also ask Paul Griffiths -- co-author of Genetics and Philosophy -- about that as well. Or even read his "What are biological sexes?":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Though he's apparently retired, but I had done so several years ago. One of his more salient and relevant observations:
PG: "It is, indeed, all about the various different things we call ‘definitions’ and the roles of these various things in science and in practical life. That’s such a complex topic that it is not surprising that so many people – philosophers included – make such a mess of it. Roughly my own view is that in science we shape our definitions to fit the phenomena we investigate, and that definitions should be evaluated by whether they form an integral part of a successful theory of some class of phenomena."
The biological definitions are rather clearly "designed" to reflect that essential element. You might try reading that article of Parker's and Lehtonen's, particularly this bit from the abstract:
"The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Some reason to argue -- as they are clearly doing -- that anisogamy is the root cause for every last bit of sexual dimorphism -- physiological and psychological -- on the planet. And for the last billion years or so.