Here is my conversation with Helen Joyce, tackling the influence of gender ideology on society, the ideological lens, and its implications for scientific facts.The Poetry of Reality with Richard Dawkins is a reader-supported publication.
Generally very good interview with Helen Joyce -- you both cover a lot of ground, and there is no shortage of reasons to throw stones, a rock quarry of them, at various gender ideologues.
However, I think there are any number of places where she, in particular, drops the ball and is, maybe arguably, almost as much a part of the problem as of the solution. For instance, she rather risibly asserts, in an absolute howler @7:16:
HJ: "And if you're a mammal every part of your body is female ... but you know my hands are female my jaw is female ..."
She might just as well assert that if she was still a teenager then every part of her body is a teenager; similarly, that every part of her body is a vertebrate because she, presumably, has a spine.
But I don't think she quite understands the nature of categories -- rather surprising given her PhD in mathematics though that was probably several decades ago. But entities are construed to be members of categories -- vertebrate, teenager, male, female -- because they meet the necessary and sufficient conditions to so qualify, to be a counted as referents of those terms. See:
And for vertebrate and teenager, those necessary and sufficient conditions are having a spine and being 13 to 19. Rather risible to then say that one's hands and jaws are vertebrates or teenagers -- the term applies to the whole organism, not parts of it.
Likewise with "male" and "female", although in those cases, those necessary and sufficient conditions are basically -- according to reputable sources like the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction (see the Glossary) and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology -- to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless:
"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"
Helen and Maya Forstater and far too many others may well "believe" that "sex is immutable" -- a rather risibly unscientific belief at best given the hundreds of species which change sex all the time. But it is no more so than is "teenager". We pass into and out of various categories depending on whether we can "pay the membership dues" or not.
Helen and Company no doubt have many valid criticism of "gender ideology". But much of the wind is taken out of their sails when they peddle what is little better than folk-biology, being charitable.
The Lehtonen and Parker article provides good background to anisogamy. That's where I got my info from and it's a good article to cite.
Similar to what you're saying, my issue is with trying to get around the gamete-producing physiological definition on which so much argument is currently based and which raises as many issues as it solves. For example, what of menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies, pre-pubescent boys and girls, men who have had accidents or for whatever reason have non-functional testes?
I’m trying to find a precise biological definition that works for everyone, in social terms, and the chromosomal inclusion seems best for that. Richard’s definition of a woman, specifically, as an “adult human female, free of Y chromosomes” seems to work best to a point, even though the tense as to gamete production may have to be broadly noted.
Agree 100% on the Lehtonen & Parker article, particularly as the latter has an FRS to his name.
However, while I sympathize with your efforts to "find a precise biological definition that works for everyone", I kinda think that that is like trying to square the circle. The biological definitions for the sexes aren't participation trophies, they aren't "prizes for effort" as Helen herself notes. They're "designed" to be an accurate reflection of reality. Something of an obscure point that I don't have as good a handle on as I would like, but I think this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on natural kinds gets to the heart of the matter:
SEP: "Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings. We tend to assume that science is often successful in revealing these kinds; it is a corollary of scientific realism that when all goes well the classifications and taxonomies employed by science correspond to the real kinds in nature. The existence of these real and independent kinds of things is held to justify our scientific inferences and practices."
A "social definition", those typical of "social sciences", those that comport with folk-biology are antithetical to that principle, they explicitly reflect the often idiosyncratic "interests and actions of human beings".
Big part of the problem is that many feminists have more or less bet the farm on the definition for "woman" as "adult human female". IF one then accepts the biological definitions of Parker and Lehtonen and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology THEN it necessarily follows that, as you say, menopausees are not females, are not women. The horror! "Quick, where are the fainting couches?"
Which is, I expect, why so many feminists, so many women rather desperately try to bastardize the biological definitions -- rank Lysenkoism: "the deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically or socially desirable." Though a lot of that goin' round these days:
So, being caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place -- with their hands and minds stuck in a monkey trap [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap] -- many of them search around for other alternatives, other definitions that they can then pass off as the real-meal deal. And one of the better ones -- A for effort at least -- is that peddled by "biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright, and which had been published in the letter section of the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper but hardly what anyone would reasonably call a peer-reviewed biological journal:
UK Times: "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."
Rather explicitly designed to comport with the "interests and actions of human beings". Because it comes a cropper when applied to the hundreds of species which actually change sex. Not to mention the fact that it means that many humans qualify for sex category membership cards -- "act now! offer ends soon!" -- despite not actually being able to reproduce. Which even Helen more or less accepts as the sine qua non for the concept. Rather slippery slope and special pleading in so many ways -- if you disconnect "female" from a particular reproductive function then why can't penis havers qualify?
But that's kind of the point of the biological definitions -- they apply to ALL anisogamous species, no exceptions: if an organism produces large gametes then it is a female, and if it produces small gametes then it is a male, and if it produces neither large nor small gametes -- characteristic of many species over large spans of their lives -- then they are neither male nor female. Q.E.D.
You in particular might be interested in a spirited defense of that idea and those biological definitions by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy -- in his "What are biological sexes?":
Griffiths (PhilPapers): "Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes – one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. This fact has been obscured by concentrating on humans, and ignoring species which regularly change sex, as well as those with non-genetic or facultatively genetic sex determination systems."
So, what to do. One COULD redefine "woman" -- bit of a growth industry, more the merrier. But, maybe for starters, how about "adult human vagina-haver"? Or, genuflecting to Hilton and Company, "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality"? Kinda think that's likely to be a non-starter, since many women seem to "think" that "female" IS a participation trophy, IS a prize for effort, IS no more than an accessory, an "immutable identity" deriving from some "mythic essence" that they are rather "attached" to. And damned be anyone who tries to deprive them of it. "Scientific"? What a joke. Scientism at best.
Rather complex issue, much of which turns on "a linguistic movement" as Helen suggested. But she and many in her tribe are just as guilty of trying bastardize the biology for rather less than salutary "reasons".
Neil Degrass Tyson recently came out supporting gender ideology. Usually he is a voice of reason. Do you have any opinion on how he has become captured by the woke crowd and would you have him on to discuss this further.
Anatomical females should not, e.g. be in male prisons, but I don’t understand why an anatomical male would want to use women’s toilets or change rooms or compete in women’s sport. It seems to be showing personal disrespect and is ‘unsporstman’-like. Why are they doing that if not to win? But being by unfair physical advantage seems like cheating.
Also important to qualify that the majority of assaults on women are by “ordinary”, “CIS” men. The whole 'trans' thing tends to divert from that.
I also emphasise that I’m pro-women, not anti-trans. My points are purely practical, with no ethical or philosophical intention. Just trying to find practical ways ahead in what is a ridiculously polarised issue.
"ridiculously polarized", indeed. Reminds me of nothing so much as Swift's Lilliputian civil wars over egg (ova?) cracking protocols, and Pope's Rape of the Lock (part deux).
Big part of the problem is that most people are emotionally attached to particular definitions of a rather archaic if not antediluvian nature, and they'll be damned if they'll consider updates or modifications that might be more precise and/or useful. Reminds me of an elaboration on a Voltaire quote by the philosopher Will Durant:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
Reminds me also of another famous quote of Swift's that I ran across recently:
JS: "... Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired: For in the Course of Things, Men always grow vicious before they become Unbelievers. ...."
Finally, you might be interested in a recent New Statesman article by Richard, linked to in another Substack you might want to take a gander at, the aptly titled Reality's Last Stand:
RD: "But what about gender? What is gender, and how many genders are there? It is now fashionable to use “gender” for what we might call fictive sex: a person’s 'gender' is the sex to which they feel that they belong, as opposed to their biological sex. In this meaning, 'genders' have proliferated wildly. When I last heard, there were 83. But that was yesterday. What does “gender” actually mean?"
I think -- many people think -- there's a great deal of justification for arguing that "gender" is an entirely different kettle of fish from "sex". So it's nice to see Richard more or less follow suit, though I don't think he goes far enough. For instance, in the interview Helen at least talks about the "gender-nonconforming", mostly kids developing their senses of self. But on that view, that "non-conforming" is just kids exhibiting masculine and feminine personality traits that are atypical of their sexes. Hardly a crime or any sort of pretext for mangling their bodies into some ersatz simulacra of the other sex -- which IS a crime.
My main issues is I don’t understand the moral contradiction in forcing surgery onto people under 18, who cannot sign a consent form to medical procedures. On the one hand we’re being asked to accept trans people for what they are and yet on the other to accept people who have no legal say being forced to conform to binary social expectations on the say-so of their parents. I am perfectly happy to accept trans people without judgment and recognise full rights (within practical reason), but at the same time I risk being thought of as prejudiced against trans people if I think children shouldn’t be forced to conform to being “made” physiologically male or female.
Generally very good interview with Helen Joyce -- you both cover a lot of ground, and there is no shortage of reasons to throw stones, a rock quarry of them, at various gender ideologues.
However, I think there are any number of places where she, in particular, drops the ball and is, maybe arguably, almost as much a part of the problem as of the solution. For instance, she rather risibly asserts, in an absolute howler @7:16:
HJ: "And if you're a mammal every part of your body is female ... but you know my hands are female my jaw is female ..."
She might just as well assert that if she was still a teenager then every part of her body is a teenager; similarly, that every part of her body is a vertebrate because she, presumably, has a spine.
But I don't think she quite understands the nature of categories -- rather surprising given her PhD in mathematics though that was probably several decades ago. But entities are construed to be members of categories -- vertebrate, teenager, male, female -- because they meet the necessary and sufficient conditions to so qualify, to be a counted as referents of those terms. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
And for vertebrate and teenager, those necessary and sufficient conditions are having a spine and being 13 to 19. Rather risible to then say that one's hands and jaws are vertebrates or teenagers -- the term applies to the whole organism, not parts of it.
Likewise with "male" and "female", although in those cases, those necessary and sufficient conditions are basically -- according to reputable sources like the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction (see the Glossary) and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology -- to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless:
"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
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
Helen and Maya Forstater and far too many others may well "believe" that "sex is immutable" -- a rather risibly unscientific belief at best given the hundreds of species which change sex all the time. But it is no more so than is "teenager". We pass into and out of various categories depending on whether we can "pay the membership dues" or not.
Helen and Company no doubt have many valid criticism of "gender ideology". But much of the wind is taken out of their sails when they peddle what is little better than folk-biology, being charitable.
The Lehtonen and Parker article provides good background to anisogamy. That's where I got my info from and it's a good article to cite.
Similar to what you're saying, my issue is with trying to get around the gamete-producing physiological definition on which so much argument is currently based and which raises as many issues as it solves. For example, what of menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies, pre-pubescent boys and girls, men who have had accidents or for whatever reason have non-functional testes?
I’m trying to find a precise biological definition that works for everyone, in social terms, and the chromosomal inclusion seems best for that. Richard’s definition of a woman, specifically, as an “adult human female, free of Y chromosomes” seems to work best to a point, even though the tense as to gamete production may have to be broadly noted.
Agree 100% on the Lehtonen & Parker article, particularly as the latter has an FRS to his name.
However, while I sympathize with your efforts to "find a precise biological definition that works for everyone", I kinda think that that is like trying to square the circle. The biological definitions for the sexes aren't participation trophies, they aren't "prizes for effort" as Helen herself notes. They're "designed" to be an accurate reflection of reality. Something of an obscure point that I don't have as good a handle on as I would like, but I think this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on natural kinds gets to the heart of the matter:
SEP: "Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings. We tend to assume that science is often successful in revealing these kinds; it is a corollary of scientific realism that when all goes well the classifications and taxonomies employed by science correspond to the real kinds in nature. The existence of these real and independent kinds of things is held to justify our scientific inferences and practices."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
A "social definition", those typical of "social sciences", those that comport with folk-biology are antithetical to that principle, they explicitly reflect the often idiosyncratic "interests and actions of human beings".
Big part of the problem is that many feminists have more or less bet the farm on the definition for "woman" as "adult human female". IF one then accepts the biological definitions of Parker and Lehtonen and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology THEN it necessarily follows that, as you say, menopausees are not females, are not women. The horror! "Quick, where are the fainting couches?"
Which is, I expect, why so many feminists, so many women rather desperately try to bastardize the biological definitions -- rank Lysenkoism: "the deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically or socially desirable." Though a lot of that goin' round these days:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
So, being caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place -- with their hands and minds stuck in a monkey trap [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap] -- many of them search around for other alternatives, other definitions that they can then pass off as the real-meal deal. And one of the better ones -- A for effort at least -- is that peddled by "biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright, and which had been published in the letter section of the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper but hardly what anyone would reasonably call a peer-reviewed biological journal:
UK Times: "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://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Rather explicitly designed to comport with the "interests and actions of human beings". Because it comes a cropper when applied to the hundreds of species which actually change sex. Not to mention the fact that it means that many humans qualify for sex category membership cards -- "act now! offer ends soon!" -- despite not actually being able to reproduce. Which even Helen more or less accepts as the sine qua non for the concept. Rather slippery slope and special pleading in so many ways -- if you disconnect "female" from a particular reproductive function then why can't penis havers qualify?
But that's kind of the point of the biological definitions -- they apply to ALL anisogamous species, no exceptions: if an organism produces large gametes then it is a female, and if it produces small gametes then it is a male, and if it produces neither large nor small gametes -- characteristic of many species over large spans of their lives -- then they are neither male nor female. Q.E.D.
You in particular might be interested in a spirited defense of that idea and those biological definitions by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy -- in his "What are biological sexes?":
Griffiths (PhilPapers): "Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes – one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. This fact has been obscured by concentrating on humans, and ignoring species which regularly change sex, as well as those with non-genetic or facultatively genetic sex determination systems."
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
So, what to do. One COULD redefine "woman" -- bit of a growth industry, more the merrier. But, maybe for starters, how about "adult human vagina-haver"? Or, genuflecting to Hilton and Company, "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality"? Kinda think that's likely to be a non-starter, since many women seem to "think" that "female" IS a participation trophy, IS a prize for effort, IS no more than an accessory, an "immutable identity" deriving from some "mythic essence" that they are rather "attached" to. And damned be anyone who tries to deprive them of it. "Scientific"? What a joke. Scientism at best.
Rather complex issue, much of which turns on "a linguistic movement" as Helen suggested. But she and many in her tribe are just as guilty of trying bastardize the biology for rather less than salutary "reasons".
Neil Degrass Tyson recently came out supporting gender ideology. Usually he is a voice of reason. Do you have any opinion on how he has become captured by the woke crowd and would you have him on to discuss this further.
Anatomical females should not, e.g. be in male prisons, but I don’t understand why an anatomical male would want to use women’s toilets or change rooms or compete in women’s sport. It seems to be showing personal disrespect and is ‘unsporstman’-like. Why are they doing that if not to win? But being by unfair physical advantage seems like cheating.
Also important to qualify that the majority of assaults on women are by “ordinary”, “CIS” men. The whole 'trans' thing tends to divert from that.
I also emphasise that I’m pro-women, not anti-trans. My points are purely practical, with no ethical or philosophical intention. Just trying to find practical ways ahead in what is a ridiculously polarised issue.
"ridiculously polarized", indeed. Reminds me of nothing so much as Swift's Lilliputian civil wars over egg (ova?) cracking protocols, and Pope's Rape of the Lock (part deux).
Big part of the problem is that most people are emotionally attached to particular definitions of a rather archaic if not antediluvian nature, and they'll be damned if they'll consider updates or modifications that might be more precise and/or useful. Reminds me of an elaboration on a Voltaire quote by the philosopher Will Durant:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
Reminds me also of another famous quote of Swift's that I ran across recently:
JS: "... Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired: For in the Course of Things, Men always grow vicious before they become Unbelievers. ...."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/07/10/reason-out/
Finally, you might be interested in a recent New Statesman article by Richard, linked to in another Substack you might want to take a gander at, the aptly titled Reality's Last Stand:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/weekly-reality-report-a7c
https://archive.li/2023.07.29-151435/https:/www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins
Of particular note from that article:
RD: "But what about gender? What is gender, and how many genders are there? It is now fashionable to use “gender” for what we might call fictive sex: a person’s 'gender' is the sex to which they feel that they belong, as opposed to their biological sex. In this meaning, 'genders' have proliferated wildly. When I last heard, there were 83. But that was yesterday. What does “gender” actually mean?"
I think -- many people think -- there's a great deal of justification for arguing that "gender" is an entirely different kettle of fish from "sex". So it's nice to see Richard more or less follow suit, though I don't think he goes far enough. For instance, in the interview Helen at least talks about the "gender-nonconforming", mostly kids developing their senses of self. But on that view, that "non-conforming" is just kids exhibiting masculine and feminine personality traits that are atypical of their sexes. Hardly a crime or any sort of pretext for mangling their bodies into some ersatz simulacra of the other sex -- which IS a crime.
My main issues is I don’t understand the moral contradiction in forcing surgery onto people under 18, who cannot sign a consent form to medical procedures. On the one hand we’re being asked to accept trans people for what they are and yet on the other to accept people who have no legal say being forced to conform to binary social expectations on the say-so of their parents. I am perfectly happy to accept trans people without judgment and recognise full rights (within practical reason), but at the same time I risk being thought of as prejudiced against trans people if I think children shouldn’t be forced to conform to being “made” physiologically male or female.
Whole bunch of people in this issue who are morally "compromised", who are putting their bottom lines ahead of any and all ethical considerations:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/26/male-nurse-lurked-trans-kid-meetings-find-clientele-hormones-lawsuit-alleges/
https://uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com/2023/07/29/first-case-against-illegal-testosterone-injections-nurse-practitioner-sued-by-young-woman-he-influenced-caused-permanent-damage/
Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-get-a-man-to-understand-something