CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
Steersman, enlighten us with the terminology you propose for the gamete-less folk. Also the penalties for misrepresenting oneself.
You might consider the definition for "nominally
": "in name only; officially though perhaps not in reality". In which case, one might say, if one wanted to be precise or other than loosey-goosey, "gamete-less folk" are nominally
male or female but are not so "in reality".
But it is really kind of curious, kind of amusing, though "problematic", that so many "men" seem so reluctant to face the implications of those definitions. I can kind of understand that with women whose claim to "female" is even more tenuous once they reach menopause, although given the nature of "the curse" I'm surprised that more aren't happy to see the end of inclusion in that category. But in both cases it seems that reluctance causes no end of problems - largely a case of identity politics writ large.
More particularly, it seems that many "men" and "women" are attached to some rather wooish definitions for the terms that are little better than stereotypes at best if not outright straightjackets. You may wish to take a gander at this tweet which, I think, neatly summarizes the issue:
So while your "gamete checks for people" and "people misrepresenting themselves" are kind of amusing - even if little more than red herrings and moving the goalposts, and while I can certainly appreciate that a "nominal" use of the terms "male" and "female" - and of "man" and "woman" - is more or less implied, I really don't think it helps anyone at all to refuse to be precise in our definitions - and those ones in particular. One might even reasonably argue that the stereotypes that are thereby entailed, and which many seem to accept as the norm if not de rigueur
, are part and parcel of the trauma that many "dysphoric" kids experience and which lead to some rather life-threatening choices.
In addition, while my "quest is [maybe] a cruel overreaction to the trans lobby eroding the term woman
", I rather doubt the #TransLoonie tide will be turned until people make some effort to be precise in the relevant defintions. Though it is hardly a case of me "redefining language to [my] own particular meaning" since the standard definitions on the books for both "male" & "female" are clearly predicated on the actual production of corresponding gametes - for ACTUAL reproduction.
It is of course - or maybe - moot why the production of gametes should be considered the sine qua non
for those categories; after all, those types of cells weren't really identified until fairly recently. Though I wonder which other criteria or attributes you might suggest as alternatives - maybe you would include "possessing a penis" for "female"? But it has clearly been obvious for much longer that there were two categories of people - of all animals for that matter - that were essential to reproduction. And that there was also an additional but related category of those who weren't able to be part of that process - the infertile.
But all that modern biology has added to that definition has been a precise specification of the fundamental elements they possess that were most
essential, a refinement of the definition. None of which really should be considered beyond the pale, particularly given that, for example, the definitions for forces and particles have also evolved tremendously; rather "anti-scientific and anti-intellectual" to think the principle shouldn't apply to more mundane categories.