The app for independent voices
> "Mounk: So perhaps there’s two natural kinds, which are organisms that produce large sex cells and organisms that produce small sex cells. The question though is why is that the definition of male and female .... Why is it that the question of whether we are large sex cell producing or small sex cell producing creatures should be taken to be definitive of our understanding of sex?"
Good point and good questions. Apropos of which, you in particular might have, and Byrne should have, some interest in this PhilPapers article on "Are sexes natural kinds?" by Muhammad Ali Khalidi:
Of particular note from the Abstract:
Khalidi: "The distinction between females and males in the animal kingdom is based on the relative size of the gametes they produce, with females producing larger gametes (ova) and males producing smaller gametes (sperm). This chapter argues that the properties of producing relatively large and small gametes are causally correlated with a range of other properties in a wide variety of organisms, and this is what makes females and males natural kinds in the animal kingdom. .... The claim that sexes are natural kinds in the animal kingdom does not imply that the biological differences among female and male humans do and should have social consequences."
As indicated there, the article argues that the type of gametes we produce -- as millions of different anisogamous species -- apparently has had a great many consequences among all of those species which justifies the term "natural kinds". The "mechanisms" of producing different size gametes are ubiquitous, are properties that are shared between all those millions of species. Though it is maybe moot whether there's a more fundamental "essence" -- maybe there are some "cis" and "trans" genes that we've all had for the last billion years or so that has driven all of that anisogamy, and all of the subsequent sexual dimorphism on the planet?
But even if those cis and trans genes turns out to be the case, the actual production of large and small gametes seems like a useful starting point and a "definitive" basis. Related thereto, you might also have some interest in a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] article on "Mechanisms in Science" -- an idea which Khalidi touches on at several points -- and my own elaboration on the theme:
However, while Byrne makes some useful observations on that dichotomy, I'm rather profoundly disappointed that he seems totally clueless about the standard biological definitions for the sexes -- if he's not actively engaged in grinding an axe for fun and profit, in peddling what is hardly more than folk-biology:
Byrne: "... here I just lean on the absolutely standard textbook account of what the two sexes are. In a nutshell, to be male is to have a body plan that is designed to produce small gametes, sex cells, i.e. sperm. And to be female is to have a body plan that's designed to produce large gametes or sex cells, i.e. eggs."
Absolutely NO reputable biological journal, encyclopedia, or dictionary says ANYTHING about "designed to produce". Profoundly ridiculous, incoherent, inconsistent, and quite unscientific. For one thing, designed by who? How can you tell? What are the objective criteria that quantifies and differentiates those two separate "designs"? And in all of those millions of species? 🙄
All of those substantially more reputable sources are all stipulating "produces gametes" -- present tense, right now; not in the sweet by and by, nor some time in ancient history. Which is why reputable biologists talk about sequential hermaphroditism: many species --hundreds if not thousands of them, clownfish in particular -- change sex because they change the type of gamete they're actually producing. Technically speaking -- and if we wanted to follow suit on the claptrap that Byrne and too many so-called biologists are peddling -- we would have to say that those clownfish are "designed" to produce both large and small gametes, and are therefore both male and female right from the moment of hatching if not conception.
But more particularly, you might have some interest in exactly how some of those more reputable sources define those categories:
academic.oup.com/molehr… (see the Glossary)
twitter.com/pwkilleen/s… (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
And even more popular and online dictionaries -- like Google/OxfordLanguages -- endorse the same definitions. The more general problem -- which you might want to consider tackling -- is that far too many charlatans, grifters, political opportunists, and scientific illiterates are engaged in peddling folk-biology. And largely because too many -- not just transgender ideologues -- have turned the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences" -- Byrne's "designed to produce" being no more than a thread-bare fig-leaf.
The closing sentence in Khalidi's Abstract touches on that wider problem:
Khalidi: "The claim that sexes are natural kinds in the animal kingdom does not imply that the biological differences among female and male humans do and should have social consequences."
Though he also points out that those differences have had, and continue to have significant "social consequences". But bastardizing and corrupting the biology in furthering various social policies-- as Byrne and too many others are engaged in doing -- is rather counter-productive at best. And, in fact, is no better than egregious Lysenkoism, i.e., the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable":