The cells used for reproduction.
Yes because that’s how you sex animals that you can’t tell the difference externally. Look at the size of their sex cells. The reference to “if you need one” was for non mammalian species where it is incredibly obvious, e.g. reptilian or avian eggs.
No it’s not a definition. It’s a method to sex species. If you want a definition it’s ones who have or do produce the larger sex cells (female) and the other case for male. And of course there are species that can just split their own DNA without a sperm.
All definitions are “mostly true”. Sexes exist. Just because you can’t define something absolutely accurately doesn’t mean they cease to exist. Definitions, including your definition of a definition, are a man made concept. They can be perfectly logical in your hypothetical system. Real life isn’t hypothetical. You’re trying to apply the rational to something irrational. Humans, life, are not rational. There are no absolute rules. Only ones you postulate in your head and attempt to apply to what you perceive.
Let’s narrow it to humans alone. It’s impossible to define female and male if your rule is that if you find a single exception then the definition is void. I never said 8 fingers and 2 thumbs is the definition for a human. I said part of the definition of a human is that they have 10 fingers. And if you come across a human who doesn’t have 10 fingers that doesn’t then mean that they aren’t human.
Is it incorrect to say “humans have 10 fingers”? Or “humans have 2 arms”? Or 2 eyes? 2 ears? 1 nose?
Of course not. They are all true. And yet you can find a human where they differ from these because they are anomalies. You can’t define a human. Because any definition you use there will be an exception. Or the definition will be so vague that it’s useless.
Words mean whatever you want them to mean.
Last edited:
