Cool, you’re only now even contemplating what I’ve been talking about for several posts. Ovarian agenesis, Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, anorchia.
You’ve illustrated my point exactly. Why are those conditions called ovarian agenesis and anorchia? Think hard about that and what that implies about the fact that, even though the gonads are missing, we can tell what they would be if present. The names literally support my point. MRKH likewise leads to missing ovaries, not testes. Why is that?
Sorry, I can’t help you when you’re being willfully obtuse. I’ll try one last analogy, which I’ve been resisting since it can often confuse, but I really don’t know how else to get through to you. Don’t bother say “Oho! Here’s where the analogy fails!”. I already know that, thanks.
Consider a computer program in which its “sex” is determined by the first bit it outputs, either 1 or 0. You run it and the program doesn’t output anything. Oh no! What sex is it? You examine the program and find a “output_zero_bit” function that was never called. The program has no other way of writing a bit. There is no code that will output a 1, and it is impossible for the program to do so. That program would be “sexed” as a “0” because although it didn’t output a 0, it has the code to output a zero and doesn’t have the code to output a 1. If, at some point, we found programs that had no code to output anything at all, and had no concept of outputting either a zero or a one, we’d called those programs sexless. Those programs would be organized around producing nothing. But nothing like that has been found, and it’s extremely unlikely that we ever would.
Again, don’t bother responding if you’re going to say “humans aren’t 1’s and 0’s!”. Already aware, thanks. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere if you’re going to respond with an “Oho!”, but if anyone else reading this is actually curious, that analogy may help clarify the situation.
Cool, you’re only now even contemplating what I’ve been talking about for several posts. Ovarian agenesis, Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, anorchia.
You’ve illustrated my point exactly. Why are those conditions called ovarian agenesis and anorchia? Think hard about that and what that implies about the fact that, even though the gonads are missing, we can tell what they would be if present. The names literally support my point. MRKH likewise leads to missing ovaries, not testes. Why is that?
So sex is determined by what structures medical professionals expect to be there.
No.
The medical professionals examine nearby structures to reveal what sex the body has.
Yeah. So “nearby structures” determine sex, not “size of gametes”. What are they nearby? Possibly nothing.
Sorry, I can’t help you when you’re being willfully obtuse. I’ll try one last analogy, which I’ve been resisting since it can often confuse, but I really don’t know how else to get through to you. Don’t bother say “Oho! Here’s where the analogy fails!”. I already know that, thanks.
Consider a computer program in which its “sex” is determined by the first bit it outputs, either 1 or 0. You run it and the program doesn’t output anything. Oh no! What sex is it? You examine the program and find a “output_zero_bit” function that was never called. The program has no other way of writing a bit. There is no code that will output a 1, and it is impossible for the program to do so. That program would be “sexed” as a “0” because although it didn’t output a 0, it has the code to output a zero and doesn’t have the code to output a 1. If, at some point, we found programs that had no code to output anything at all, and had no concept of outputting either a zero or a one, we’d called those programs sexless. Those programs would be organized around producing nothing. But nothing like that has been found, and it’s extremely unlikely that we ever would.
Again, don’t bother responding if you’re going to say “humans aren’t 1’s and 0’s!”. Already aware, thanks. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere if you’re going to respond with an “Oho!”, but if anyone else reading this is actually curious, that analogy may help clarify the situation.
You start that “analogy” with the binary assumption. That’s where it falls apart.
Yeah, that’s one way to (not) answer.