But I can see arguments for how defining sex at the individual level might be different. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Could you throw any out?
I'm only pushing, as it seems that your initial outline there ("in the aggregate") is aptly applied to individuals too. But, i do agree, at least intuitively, its easier to parse in teh aggregate.

That's a different condition... We can talk about that if you like?

I could see an argument that the function of sex in the species is not the same as the sex of an individual, sentient animal of any sort, for whom sex is also identity. For all intents and purposes, this only applies to humans.

Because it's easy to say what the function of sex is in the species, in the same way that eyes "are for seeing," and yet "being a blind person" can obviously be part of someone's identity in the same way that "being intersex" can be. This is perhaps most obvious with deaf communities. Sex as function is discrete and binary. Sex as expression isn't even "a spectrum" it's more complex, probably something you'd have to plot in some-n-dimensional space.

But identity comes as much, if not more, from expression than function. E.g., for over a thousand years in the West, the most respected people in society were men and women who categorically gave up the functionality of sex by oath, along with the ownership of property, but who lived in sex segregated communities and were defined as monks versus nuns by their sex — the divorce of sex vis-á-vis identity from sex as a function in the species.

Side note: this just shows how disconnected we are from that past era. The idea of homeless, unemployed virgins being the most respected people is the most anathema thing I could think of for today's world. Consider the responses to homelessness in San Francisco, a city named after Saint Francis, a man who wore sack cloth and slept in the woods.

The continent has given us Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Suárez; the Atlantic, in its short 100 years of proeminence, allowed only by the outcome of WW2, is stuck trying to define "knowledge", pretending it is a philosophical problem and not a fault in the language they speak — from the same people who shun prescriptive linguistics and champion descriptive linguistics.

inventing new languages for each subfield of inquiry. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Continental Europeans do that? Perhaps they do, but is it better or worse than abusing French words for concepts that, beyond already existing, are very mundane? I would rather have a different word for a different concept than using "Australia" to mean Papua New-Guinea.

I suppose theres a level of correctness in your title and I believe the immutable part of sex, as the discussion is pointing towards is the Gametes. That being said every pathos of distance has ranks of gradations between them. "Male," and "Female," is useful for clarity in spoken language. It doesn't really tell you much about a person. — Vaskane

I'm not arguing against sex variations. For example, if you're an XXY human, you're not exactly a common male. There is absolutely nothing wrong with defining this as a new sex. My point is only that it is immutable. What this tells us about a person is simply that, the fact they have XXY chromosomes and how that impacts their physical reality. This is still a separate discussion from gender.

I think Sex and Gender are patently, inarguably different sets of properties and are easily discernable from one another. It is totally bizarre to me that it's taken seriously that they are either the same thing, or somehow reliant on one another — AmadeusD

Would you agree that in humans and other mammals there are sex-correlated differences in brain function that lead to the differences in behavior between males and females that allow, for instance, dog owners and trainers to quickly recognize males and females on the basis of these inborn brain differences and they are manifested in behavior? would you further allow that if there are such inborn sexual-related differences in psychological-behavioral gender , that there are likely intermediates between male and female inborn brain organization. In other words, an inborn basis for a spectrum of psychological genders?

Would you agree that in humans and other mammals
there are sex-correlated differences in brain function that lead to the differences in behavior between males and females that allow, for instance, dog owners and trainers to quickly recognize males and females on the basis of these inborn brain differences and they are manifested in behavior? — Joshs

I would without any issue. But these are generalities. An aggressive or gay female does not mean they aren't female. A passive or gay male does not mean they are not male. And no male or female animal that we can tell desires to be the opposite sex. That's a human conscious decision. Motivation or desire to be the other sex doesn't mean you were born in the wrong body or aren't your natal sex. Just like the desire to be more intelligent or taller doesn't mean you were somehow denied an innate tallness or intelligence that you don't have. The brokenness is the desire to be the other sex to the point of thinking you can actually be the other sex. Its not that you were born in the wrong body.

The brokenness is the desire to be the other sex to the point of thinking you can actually be the other sex. Its not that you were born in the wrong body. — Philosophim

I think the transgender community as a whole has been moving away from this trope of ‘being born in the wrong body’, which is why there has been a move to marginalize the term ‘transexual’. Many in the transgender community believe that gender is intertwined in a hopelessly inseparable way not only with cultural influences, but interweaves culture and biological sex just as inseparably. A sex isn’t a slab of anatomy. it is defined by how it is performed. Sexed bodies are processes of interactive behaving, not simply collections of dna, so gender isnt something to be tacked onto a scientized specimen after the fact.

Many in the transgender community believe that gender is intertwined in a hopelessly inseparable way not only with cultural influences, but interweaves culture and the biological sex just as inseparably — Joshs

A belief is fine if its backed by some legitimate reasoning. From my experience, its not. Sex is biology. Behaviors that necessarily require you to be a sex are the only behaviors that could be said to necessarily flow from sex. Makes sense right? Behaviors that can cross the sexes are not solely sexual behaviors. It may be a secondary effect from sex that certain behaviors are more likely to crop up, but obviously these behaviors would exist despite sex differences.

Its a contradiction to say that behaviors belong to one sex, but can cross into the other sex. Thus the transgender communities rationalization is not rational.

Its a contradiction to say that behaviors belong to one sex, but can cross into the other sex. Thus the transgender communities rationalization is not rational — Philosophim

It a not a question of crossing from one sex to another, but of questioning the categorical purity of the concept of biological sex.

It a not a question of crossing from one sex to another, but of questioning the categorical purity of the concept of biological sex. — Joshs

I understand. My point doesn't change. If behavior is necessarily associated with one's biological sex, it must only exhibit in that sex. If the same behavior can be seen in both sexes, then it is not sexual behavior, but human behavior. Unless the transgender community can counter this, they do not have a valid argument.

I understand. My point doesn't change. If behavior is necessarily associated with one's biological sex, it must only exhibit in that sex. If the same behavior can be seen in both sexes, then it is not sexual behavior, but human behavior. Unless the transgender community can counter this, they do not have a valid argument — Philosophim

They do counter it. You keep referring to two sexes. Many within the transgender community no longer accept this binary, even if we treat it as two opposite poles of a spectrum. Btw, I don’t necessary accept every facet of this argument, but you dont seem to accord it even a smidgen of validity.

ex as expression — Count Timothy von Icarus

Could you maybe outline what you mean by this? I don't think this is a coherent concept. The 'expression' of one's sex is the functional output of one's sexual role in the species, as best I can tell.

"sexual expression" in the way you describe is, surely, just Gender by another, more confusing name?

But identity comes as much, if not more, from expression than function. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Definitely agree, but further to the above, "expression" can be "masculine" or "feminine" with some association to function of sex... But are not at all analogous or tied to the sex/es. While i believe (not worth arguing here) that some behaviours are sexual determined, most behaviours are merely correlated and have no necessity to one or other sex. In another word: Gender.

Ah, you were speaking specifically about a certain condition I was speaking of conditions in general AIS was just an example. — Vaskane

For clarity, you brought up an example, and I used the example. When you brought up another example, both of our previous responses were no longer apt because they were very particular to that one condition. Just clarifying that I'm not trying to topic-hop. That seemed to be what was happening without my input...

But it's quite possible for men to have internal female sex organs. Like I said, you reduce it down to gametes. — Vaskane

You're now using the term "men". Which defeats the entire purpose of this discussion. Males cannot have functional internal ovaries. as a result of having active SRY. Other aberrations can result in the production of the tissues required for them (many conditions for males include streak ovaries, for instance) but there is not a single example of a male with functional female reproductive organs, to my knowledge. But then, you've used the term "men". Which, I take, requires merely identifying as a man. So, I have to concede your position - while pointing out that its a Mott and Bailey in terms of our discussion.

I take the state of the being's entire bodily make up. — Vaskane

Then you have literally infinite sexes to contend with. Everyone's body has a different total make-up. This is bizarre.

a more limited social construct over a more comprehensive social construct. — Vaskane

1. I am not using any social construction whatever;
2. I don't 'prefer' anything. I'm laying out the uses of these terms as employed for their meanings;
3. There is no reason whatever to prefer a 'more comprehensive' definition of anything complex. In fact, history shows this to be the most unhelpful use of language in definite fields (biology - there is only male and female - your apparent rejection of this is lacking in support or reality); and
4. It is obvious to me that you're playing word games now, and not dealing with the issue. You've made your case for your position - I reject it and use the words as they are actually apt to be used and Am not conflating 'men/women' with 'male/female'. It seems clear to me why you have trouble with my conception and that it lies in not delineating between three distinct concepts: Sex, gender and social identity.

But your way does boil it down to the two part formula I've accused you of being landlocked to in the past. — Vaskane

No, it doesn't. You've flat-out ignored my concept of sex, as it is used in biology and sex research, and pretended I am basing it on 'gametes'. Which, ironically, amounts to the exact same conception you initially tried to present: If one cannot produce gametes, they have no sex. As absurd as to say the ability to "fuse gametes" establishes sex. I have rejected this about four times, and yet you are here accusing me of it. Risible.

always boiling things down to their black and whites. — Vaskane

If that is what something boils down to, then that is what it boils down to. It seems to me you prefer imprecise, unehlpful and confusing definitions for things that have plain meanings. Far be it from me...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with defining this as a new sex. — Philosophim

Yes, there is. That person is male already. Either people can be multiple sexes, or not.

Would you agree that in humans and other mammals there are sex-correlated differences in brain function that lead to the differences in behavior between males and females that allow, for instance, dog owners and trainers to quickly recognize males and females on the basis of these inborn brain differences and they are manifested in behavior? would you further allow that if there are such inborn sexual-related differences in psychological-behavioral gender , that there are likelyintermediates between male and female inborn brain organization. In other words, an inborn basis for a spectrum of psychological genders? — Joshs

Underlined: That is exactly my view.

The rest:
Hmm. I'm, nearly there. To me, though, the spectrum of 'psychological genders' is an actual spectrum and that there are not 'multiple discernable genders' related to the person's sex. Being one or other sex predisposes one to certain sets of behavioural properties. These are not necessary. They are at least tertiary to the sex "at hand".

In this way, the bolded part doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't know what you are considering 'male and female inborn brain organisation.'? If this is just to say that brains aren't exactly correlated with one's sex, then yeah - I don't think one's sex gives them omre than a propensity (though, it is clearly an extremely strong propensity) for any behaviour that isn't driven by sexual function. But these aren't rules, they are propensities. So, i reject that there are ny 'intermediates'. There are brains.

Sexed bodies are processes of interactive behaving, not simply collections of dna, so gender isnt something to be tacked onto a scientized specimen after the fact. — Joshs

Many within the transgender community no longer accept this binary, even if we treat it as two opposite poles of a spectrum. — Joshs

Because it isn't valid and it is not encumbent upon others to validate the incorrect assertions of special interest groups. There are two sexes.

Do you not see that you're conflating sex and gender? And that this is teh entire problem with the discussion?

Sex is a biological fact. It is not a spectrum, or a 'set of behaviours' or a "standard" or any other nonsense. "sex" doesn't arise once one becomes sexually active, or when one starts to question their own species factual expression as sexually dimorphic. These are delusional thoughts, and while they require care and support, they do not need assent.

They do counter it. You keep referring to two sexes. Many within the transgender community no longer accept this binary, even if we treat it as two opposite poles of a spectrum. — Joshs

Then please indicate what this counter is. A counter is a reasoned set of facts, propositions, and logical conclusions. An opinion or desire is not a counter.

Also, I did note that XXY could easily be indicated as a different sex. So no, I have not been insistent that there are only two sexes. For the general discussion, we are using two sexes. If you wish to discuss exceptions by addressing XXY etc., I still do not see this in opposition to my points.

I have not been insistent that there are only two sexes. For the general discussion, we are using two sexes. If you wish to discuss exceptions by addressing XXY etc., I still do not see this in opposition to my points. — Philosophim

I am going to be insistent. There are two sexes. Genetics do not determine sex. Genetics are variable within sex. If your problem is the linguistic use of terms, you've been shown an absolute use which removes all doubt and confusion, allows for all cases, and is not offensive to anyone not looking for offense.

There is not anyone who isn't male or female, but current understanding. Why isn't that good enough?

I am going to be insistent. There are two sexes. Genetics do not determine sex. Genetics are variable within sex. — AmadeusD

If sex is biological there is no harm in attributing a new label to a different genetic structure. There is also no harm in your classification either. Let me explain.

There is a constant occurrence in language which comes up in which there is the question of whether a varient of a common definition deserves an adjective or its own word. For example some bushes could be labeled as 'short trees' while some trees could be labeled as 'tall bushes'. There should be a good reason to create a new word instead of an adjective, but sometimes there are issues where the line becomes blurry.

In the case of sex, I have no issue creating a new word within the moniker of sex as long as it does not divert out of pure biology. Further, this new sex must have something substantially and meaningfully different from another existent sex. In the case of XXY, there is a clear biological difference. Its called Klinefelter syndrome, is is most often a variant of maleness. Yet in some cases, it appears to be a variant of femaleness. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15755052/#:~:text=Background%3A%20Males%20with%20a%2047,of%20this%20phenomenon%20is%20unclear.

So we could label it as 'female Klinefelter or male Klinefelter', or we could call it a new sex "Klinefelter" for example. Society can decide and to me, its practically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. So if someone wants to label it a new sex, sure. If they want to adjective it, sure. As long as it is purely based on biology and not behavior, I don't believe it matters at all.

Sex expression = phenotype expression related to sex. IDK, sometimes it is used for sex-related gene expression too, but that's less common. Either way, it isn't gender, it's phenome, what someone's physical body looks/is like.

There is not anyone who isn't male or female, but current understanding. Why isn't that good enough? — AmadeusD

It’s good to the extent that it’s useful. It’s obviously useful
for you. Is it useful for your teachers and your peers? Keep your eye out for the direction of the trends over the coming decades concerning the usefulness of the concept of the male-female binary within the social and biological sciences, and the wider culture.

I have some trans friends, a few trans colleagues and have worked with trans people. I have no theory of trans, I just tend to respond to folk as requested by them. I tend ot think of gender as performative. The bigotry and hatred this community face is exceptional.

Can I ask you, setting aside the complex theory, if you had to explain trans to a group of people with no understanding of the issue, how would you frame it?

Can I ask you, setting aside the complex theory, if you had to explain trans to a group of people with no understanding of the issue, how would you frame it? — Tom Storm

Freud said we are all fundamentally bisexual. I say we are all irreducibly trans. Gender is like personality. Just as no two people share the same personality, no two people belong to the same gender. We can of course group people in loose sorts of ways by similarities in personality and gender behavior. The same is true of the concept of biological sex. Right now most still find it useful to think in terms of two categories, but I think eventually biological sex will be melded with gender in most people’s minds.

Nice. Thanks.

Can I ask you, setting aside the complex theory, if you had to explain trans to a group of people with no understanding of the issue, how would you frame it? — Tom Storm

I don't think Josh's reply answered your question. I have a close friend of over 20 years who is trans, and I've been studying the issue for a few years both in papers, and in the community.

The easiest way to describe transgender to people who are unaware is that it is a strong emotional proclivity to want to express aspects commonly associated with the opposite sex. In 'gender' specifically, it is a desire to take on mostly the cultural aspects such as manner of speech, dress, and behavior the individual associates with the other sex. In matters of transexualism, which is the division being noted here, it is a desire to take on the secondary and/or primary sex characteristics of the opposite sex. Currently, these two notions are lumped under the same moniker 'transgender' which causes a lot of confusion.

This desire can be primarily driven by positive or negative emotions. Some examples of negatively driven desires are hatred of their own gender/sex. Not wanting the expectations of their gender/sex. Escaping their personal disgust/fear of being gay. Some positive examples are beliefs that life will be easier as the other gender/sex. An enjoyment of the cultural aspects of the other gender/sex that they believe they cannot enjoy as their current gender/sex. Sexual and romantic enjoyment in being the other gender/sex.

The desire is of course extremely strong or persistent. So it affects the individual to the point where the enjoyment is so great, or the displeasure of not exhibiting cross gender/sex is so painful, that they are willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy or appease those desires. Most understand it is not 'rational'. Practicing transgender/transexual actions serves to somewhat appease these desires.

I don't think Josh's reply answered your question. — Philosophim

I thought it was fine. Josh's answers are quite sophisticated and anti-essentialist. I have sympathy for this approach, but as a non-philosopher with an abbreviated attention span, I like to cut to the chase.

My response to the trans issue is minimalist (like most of my approaches to life). I accept trans men and women as men and women. I have encountered no good reason not to.

I think your description is the standard one I have heard around the place. But I was particularly keen to hear Joshs on this given his perspectival, postmodernist orientation.

I'm just trying to remain open on the subject cause it seems weird to me that sex was originally from Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate — Vaskane

Though it bothers me to participate in this thread yet again, this whole statement is incorrect. And before you do your usual tactics, I will challenge you give a single source that proves you right.

I don't feel you were tactic hopping, I'm just trying to remain open on the subject cause it seems weird to me that sex was originally from Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate. It only became so entwined with "gametes" only near the turn of the 20th century. Only then did a biologist find something to apply their dualistic view of the concept to our body's functioning sex organs and reproduction system, narrowing it exclusively to something that fit their prejudice and say, "ah, the Gametes are core that determines sex. — Vaskane

Umm... You realize that biology is the study of all life, and for biologists it is a pretty reasonable thing to do, to recognize the significant distinction between sexes that they do. Right?

Too bad. Wrong. It has nothing to do with Latin. Otherwise you would easily explain how sexus becomes sex morphologically. You can't because it didn't. Sex was sexe in Middle English, which was taken from French.

Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate — Vaskane

Funny how you ignored this. Completely wrong. And you are not supposed to capitalise the word, this isn't German.

I verify everything I say first — Vaskane

Too bad you lack the intelligence to interpret whatever it was that you verified. I didn't read the rest of your insane rant by the way.

I will urge all barbarians to never speak or refer to Latin, especially the crazy ones.

And showing the morphological transition from Sexus to Sex is easy af — Vaskane

No, it is not, because there is barely anything in English that comes from Latin, sex is not one of them. I will challenge you to show me on text in Anglo-Saxon that includes the word 'sex'. Saying that sex comes from sexus is rather like saying that the sky is sour, no dictionary with its non-existent authority will change that. But that is not even the greater offense. Conveniently, no source was given to "Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate", which you have ignored twice now.

we all know that YOU saying so doesn't mean shit at this point — Vaskane

We who? I and other people saw you claiming that the infinity between 1 and 3 is bigger than between 2 and 1.

And it is right, mother, that Hellenes should rule barbarians, but not barbarians Hellenes, those being slaves, while these are free. — Euripides

Hilarious that you would open this dictionary when your knowledge of linguistics is 0, clear that you haven't even mastered your simple tongue, not knowing infinity is noun and not adjective.
Let's see what it actually says:

The modern meaning of sectio 'division' suggests that sec/xus might derive from secare 'to sever', but the morphology remains unclear: does sexus go back to an .s-present *sek-s-4to cut up', or was it derived from a form *sek-s- of the putative s-stem underlying secus.

None of this says sexus means to divide or to separate, because it doesn't. A noun is not a verb. That is basic morphology.
You see, when people go to school, they don't read the textbook by themselves, but with the professor guiding them so that they don't end up with malformed ideas about the topic, which is why they take an exam at the end. But in your case it is not just ideas that are malformed, it is the vessel that holds those ideas too.

Let's see what the traditional Latin dictionary Gaffiot says

sexŭs, (10) ūs, m. , sexe : Cic. Inv. 1, 35 || [en parl. de plantes, de minéraux] : Plin. 13, 31 ; 12, 61 ; 36, 128 || organes sexuels : Plin. 22, 20

There is nothing here about separating or dividing.

You abuse sources you know nothing about because you are a politician scourring through material you have not read to prove your nonsense right. Again, stop talking about Latin.

If sex is biological there is no harm in attributing a new label to a different genetic structure. — Philosophim

This assumes genetic make up as-is, determines sex - where is does not. So, "harm" is probably not apt, but it is flatly incorrect to assign a status of 'sex' to a genetic variation within an established sex. This ruins your aim entirely.
The 'harm' comes from the fact that your usage is causing hte exact problem you're trying to solve.

So, call it direction of best fit - what you're doing is spoiling your chances of success, directly, by ignoring the problem you've identified and refusing to do what's necessary to clear up the confusion about hte terms. Again, sex is already established as somthing that genetic variation does not determine, so it is again, flatly wrong to attribute a 'sex' status to a genetic variation - this, aside from it being exactly against your purported aim for the thread.

Klinefelter syndrome — Philosophim

Is strictly a condition present in males.. It is determined firstly, by the subject being male. The highlighted section in your link (i assume you were pointing me to that?) indicates this clearly, without ambiguity. Phenotype has merely a correlative relation to sex (extremely closely correlated, it must be said). The case study presented is concerned solely with phenotype. The researches know this person is male, and that is the basis for this being a novel case (well, novel, after three examples? lol).

So we could label it as 'female Klinefelter or male Klinefelter', or we could call it a new sex "Klinefelter" for example. — Philosophim

We could, but we would be both wrong, and continuing the problem you are purporting to want to solve. I have to say, it's really strange to see you doing what yyou can to continue the language problem you seem tto want to avoid? It is the exact same here, as it is between Sex and Gender, per OP. Mixing up aberrations and actual states of sex (male/female) makes the endeavour worthless, on your aims.

Sex expression = phenotype expression related to sex. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right I see. As far as I can tell in the literature, and in my experience, this is just called 'phenotype' which varies as much within sex as without (barring specifics which are the arbiters of whether to question ones sex - external genitals, hair placement and thickness etc..). But, on that conception, yeah, sure. Just continues the confusing use of words, though.

male-female binary within the social and biological sciences, and the wider culture. — Joshs

Oof. Those are three very differeent things. I posit that the conflation of the three is why we're even having this discussion. Male/female are extremely important in biology and biologists, on the whole, reject entire the attempts to trivialise them.
But I would also add engineers to that list. They use the terms constantly to refer to something non-biological which is analogous.

The bigotry and hatred this community face is exceptional. — Tom Storm

As compared to? And in light of?
I also have many trans friends. I have worked with trans people. I simply do not care what the think and feel in their minds about their ownn identity. How could I? But even these, trans, people understand that your version of this story is inccomplete.
www.terfisaslur.com

I don't feel you were tactic hopping, I'm just trying to remain open on the subject cause it seems weird to me that sex was originally from Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate. It only became so entwined with "gametes" only near the turn of the 20th century. Only then did a biologist find something to apply their dualistic view of the concept to our body's functioning sex organs and reproduction system, narrowing it exclusively to something that fit their prejudice and say, "ah, the Gametes are core that determines sex." A sort of self fulfilling prophecy that purposefully excludes the history of the word and concept. Basically a sterilized scientific view with 0 philosophy involved.

As Pantagruel said in the thread on faith, science can only point to mundane facts. So it was forced to hand pick the most mundane elements of the human body when trying to identify Sex, in this case Gametes. — Vaskane

It just seems you have a problem with your internal struggle with gametes. I didn't posit that, and have disowned it (to the degree that someone who doesn't hold a view can disown it) multiple times. You've not engaged with anything else i've said. I can't find anything in this to be 'going on with' as it were. Appreciate your time.

Umm... You realize that biology is the study of all life, and for biologists it is a pretty reasonable thing to do, to recognize the significant distinction between sexes that they do. Right? — wonderer1

Yes, this is an obvious problem with Vaskane, and other's position.
For some reason they think that even if something is 1 or 0 we need to talk about other numbers.
And that particular one completely, and utterly ignores the fact he's wrong about hte theory, what defines it, and how it's applied. He seems stuck in the 20th C and arguing with those people, instead of the comments he's replying to.

Gender is like personality. Just as no two people share the same personality, no two people belong to the same gender. We can of course group people in loose sorts of ways by similarities in personality and gender behavior. The same is true of the concept of biological sex. — Joshs

1. Then Gender is pointless and we not even discuss it; and
2. No. If you are under the impression an actual biological distinction, on which healthcare and the propagation of a sexually dimorphic species relies as facts about them I am unsure that is a view to be taken too seriously... Feels like Phil. Twitter type of things to say.
3. If Gender is that mutable and useless as a descriptor or label, can you explain the "unreasonable effectiveness" of using sex terms in their, lets call it, adversarial form.

I said you position is valid, what more do you want from me? — Vaskane

I don't want anythhing from you. But you continually discuss a position i don't hold in respect of my comments.
Your discomfort with recognizing both the developing use of words, and attaching words to immutable facts is all well and good (and not disingenuously..it is a good scepticism to have, generally) but questioning terms like "one" and "two" as if there's some argument about what they refer to is odd - particularly as it appears you are responding to decades-old arguments, with decades-old arguments (though, in that context, you're on the higher ground for sure)