Biological Science Rejects the Sex Binary, and That’s Good for Humanity

Interesting statement. I’d be interested to hear in what sense you think the cladistic sense of the word fish is real.

1 Like

I think I already did.

That figure merely shows what you think belongs in the clade of fish. It doesn’t explain in what sense you think such a category is real. What do you mean by it being real, where some other category is not? What is the “realness” of it that some other category, for example one that corresponds to the everyday sense of the word, is not?

2 Likes

I made a new topic regarding this, since the answer to this question is rather complex and I also think I have accidentally derailed the conversation away from the original topic.

My apologies about that (to everyone here).

Continuing form a relevant point brought in the other thread.

We have agreed (unless I am mistaken) that sex is a spectrum, with male and female representing the opposite ends of the spectrum, and intersex or DSD representing the middle. In this sense, male and female are real. However, if you treat ‘male’ and ‘female’ as ‘distinct (binary) groups’, I would say that they are not real. In this case, these are subjective constructs, similar to what portions of the spectrum of visible light constitutes the color ‘red’ or ‘blue’.

Continuing from a relevant point brought up in the other topic:

I have not argued that, in order for a group to be ‘real’, it has to be based on the fundamental level of quantum physics. In fact, I gave an example to the contrary (clades aren’t defined at the level of quantum physics, but I argued that they are ‘real’ groups). I also have not claimed that groups have to be ‘real’ in order for it to matter to us, or to have value, or to have real-world consequences. We have lot’s of unreal groups that are very significant to us, like the concept of ‘family’ comes to my mind (I hope I am not causing another spin-off argument about ‘family’ like with ‘fish’).

I am saying is that a group is not ‘real’ if it is not objective; i.e. if it’s arbitrary on how the boundaries are defined. Thus the only thing I disagree with is when you said that “I am arguing for the idea of some sort of physical realness to methods of categorization even despite it having to involve some degree of arbitrariness at the boundaries.” I’d like to hear the argument for that, or rather how YOU would define the ‘realness’ of a group. Basically your question to me back at you: What do you mean by it being real, where some other category is not? What is the “realness” of it that some other category, for example one that corresponds to the everyday sense of the word, is not?

Specifically, the spectrum of colors are - literally - gradients. It’s arbitrary to draw lines within that. That’s how gradients work. You’ve basically argued the same point about how arbitrary it would be to point out the “very first fish” among the fine gradations of numerous ancestors.

And I have already addressed the exact same argument (paraphrased) before.
Argumentum ad nauseam.

No, I think you accidentally pointed out an example where there are distinct groups.
Region A is the umbra and C is the penumbra.


These regions are geometrically defined. I mean, sure quantum physics is very fundamental, but (I wouldn’t necessarily, but some would argue that) you can’t get much more fundamental than math. Or just looking at the ‘physical’ shadow itself, the umbra is ‘complete shadow’ and penumbra/antumbra is ‘partially shadow’. This isn’t the case regarding colors. There is no such thing as ‘complete red’ or ‘partially red’. At least, not objectively.

Whoa, wait…hold up!! Ad hominem alert. Also, I don’t think using “mental illness”, not even as a potential reason for why someone wouldn’t agree with you on this, is very cordial to say the least.

Again, I already addressed this with regarding the names we assign to the clades is indeed arbitrary, but clades themselves are not arbitrary.

Basically you are pointing out that, since there are (practically speaking) an infinite number of ancestors, we theoretically could defines a clade based on each of them. Thus, there is nothing special about the particular clade that we may give the name of ‘fish’. That’s just an accident of the surviving species and the extinct fossil species we happened to discover. If we were to find a new fossil species that for all intents and purposes looks like a fish, and it is sister to the fish we knew, we may reassign the name ‘fish’ to a more inclusive (parent) clade. However, let’s say that happens. Guess what? That newly characterized clade that gained the name ‘fish’ is also a real group. As I have pointed out before, it doesn’t matter what we call any clade. Conversely, it doesn’t matter to what clade we assign the word ‘fish’. The clade remains a real group. That is what I mean when I say “in the cladistic sense, fish is a real group”. I am not saying that it is objective give the name ‘fish’ to any clade. So, you are just talking past the point I was making.

Can you define ‘male’ and ‘female’ geometrically? If not, then you can’t use the shadow analogy here.

I think if you are treating sex as a spectrum, not as distinct groups, would improve matters of law, policy and health care, since that more accurately reflects the reality. So far, when I have seen people (not referring to you here) wanting to see the sexes being treated as distinct categories as a matter of law or policy, most that I have seen is very absurd things. Like people are ridiculing the suggestion that the men’s bathroom should have free tampons available. Like, what’s the issue with that? Let’s say the women’s bathroom is out of order and they can only use the men’s bathroom, so it would still be a good thing for cisgender women too. Or are we afraid that men who don’t get periods are going to abuse these tampons? Or do we have a serious problem with sexes going to the “wrong” bathrooms? Are unisex bathrooms the work of the devil? Are we going full Ned Flanders here?

But I also have noted more serious instances where establishing sex as distinct categories as a matter of policy has led to great harm. E.g. This below:

Formally, are not blurred boundary memberships the domain of fuzzy logic? The groupings are real on some level.

And conversely, when one is speaking to everyday people in colloquial language, one should not insist that human beings are “fish,” since the claim will almost always be misunderstood.

Not if you explain yourself, and it’s quite useful to acquaint people with that viewpoint. Serves to illustrate evolution and tree-thinking for the public. There’s a reason Neil Shubin chose Your Inner Fish as a title.

1 Like

Very well expressed.

Like…I have already said that my position is that sex is accurately described as a spectrum. The whole contention is that we disagree on the idea that you can objectively define ‘distinct groups with boundaries’ within such situations. So the appeal to fuzzy logic would admit my whole point that one cannot objectively define the boundaries.

And (generally) one shouldn’t call a tomato a fruit in everyday situation.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that a tomato is a fruit.

I wasn’t making the argument that we should use the word ‘fish’ like all situations. However, I second the point that @John_Harshman made, regarding educating people on tree-thinking that goes along way to promote understanding of evolution. There is utility with that, just like there is in teaching why a tomato is indeed a fruit.

And it is very well wrong, particularly this sentence:

Paraphyletic groups (such as the common sense of ‘fish’ ) are not real groups. In the other topic, @Rumraket eventually said that he has no problem with cladistics, which implies that he agrees that only monophyletic groups are real.

I’d just like to point out that it doesn’t actually imply that.

I think one could argue for other groups within biology being real, but I don’t think there is any alternative system of categorization that could apply to all of life in the way nested hierarchies can.

I could specify the groups “all organisms that can fly under their own power”, or “all obligate heterotrophs”.

You should explain why rather than just making the assertion. Clades are real in the sense that they are historical entities, each the descendants of a single ancestral species. (I’d call them real-ish, because that line of descent can include lineage sorting, introgression, and other sorts of fuzziness.) Paraphyletic groups, on the other hand, are arbitrary divisions of the tree, truncated clades with one or more artificial cutoff points.

@moderators I posted a long reply in this thread but now it seems to have completely gone without posting. Did I post in the wrong thread or something?

1 Like

Speaking only for myself, I have not seen the post.

The parallel is weak. The tomato is a fruit because the formal definition of “fruit” is based on objective natural characteristics (relating to the encasing of seeds), characteristics directly observable to the senses, and the tomato matches those characteristics. The classification of a tomato as a fruit does not depend on a hypothetical historical account of the origin of tomatoes. In contrast, classifying bears as “fish” does not follow from the observable natural characteristics of bears and fish, but is justified entirely on the basis of a hypothetical (however plausible) historical account of the origin of bears. And even then was not a normal locution, pre-cladistics; did you ever hear Darwin or Dobzhansky saying that bears were fish? (Not “descended from fish”, but “fish”?) And even post-cladistics the term “fish,” outside of a small geeky audience, will lead to confusion. [Post corrected by author, to eliminate misapplication of John Harshman’s comment about teleosts.]

Which explanation will eventually lead to the point that “fish” is not a scientific term. [Post corrected by author, to eliminate misapplication of John Harshman’s comment about teleosts.]

The reason is rhetorical and pedagogical. The seeming absurdity of the notion, to the lay ear, is meant to catch the reader’s interest, so that Shubin can then launch into an exposition of current evolutionary thinking. (Keeping to the theme of “fish,” it is a sort of bait, by which Shubin hopes to reel in his readers.) And such uses of words are fair game, for such purposes. But as they are meant to confuse before they clarify, they are not a means of efficient communication for everyday purposes, where immediate clarity is the goal.

1 Like

Actually, it does follow from the observable natural characteristics. How do you think formal classification/phylogenetics works? And why are you downplaying what is among the most well-tested hypotheses in science? Do you think that oxygen atoms having 8 protons is similarly hypothetical?

No it won’t. I don’t think you understand the purpose of calling mammals “fish” or how the discussion works. You even seem to be minimizing the evidence for common descent in the process. What’s going on with you?

Exactly. So what’s wrong with that?

No, they are meant to surprise and to spur thinking, which is different. You’re an odd fish indeed.

2 Likes

Thanks. I guess something just went wrong when I posted. That is painful.