And many humans have neither. Also, it's not clear what cells you're referring to. "sex cells" would probably best describe gametes, i.e. sperm or eggs. Those are cells, but it's odd that you would cite only size as the description of them. And yes, you'd certainly need a microscope to see them.
So by your definition all post-menopausal women are no longer female, all women who've had their ovaries removed are no longer female and all men who've had their testicles removed are no longer male. There may also be people with non-functioning primary sexual organs. I don't know if that's the case, but if it is then by your definition they are also neuter.
If you use 8 fingers and 2 thumbs as the definition of "human", then anything without 8 fingers and 2 thumbs is not human and any animal with 8 fingers and 2 thumbs is human. Congratulations! You've just defined all primates as human and some humans as not human.
Definitions must be accurate. "Mostly true" isn't good enough - you're defining something, so it must apply in all cases. That's what the definition of a thing is - a description of what that thing is. Anything that does not meet that definition is not that thing. By definition.
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: