4 ms·

First off, it's likely that "sex" is much harder to define than you'd think. Human genitals all develop from the same proto-bits, creating more of a spectrum of

First off, it's likely that "sex" is much harder to define than you'd think. Human genitals all develop from the same proto-bits, creating more of a spectrum of configurations than a stark "clearly this one" or "clearly that one" binary. And chromosomes are not super useful either; just taking stats for two conditions off the top of my head, there are probably at least 1.75 million people walking around who are genitally "male" but chromosomally "female" -- the difficulty of detection (you have to literally look at someone's DNA) masks a lot of that stuff, and probably it's even more common than we currently estimate. Second, "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. So even though the legal system uses "sex", what they're really describing is "gender".

nostrebored 10y ago
>Second, "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. So even though the legal system uses "sex", what they're really describing is "gender". Really? I would say genitals as a heuristic for your legal status is probably extremely accurate. Are you denying that humans are sexually dimorphic?
- DasIch 10y ago
  Why rely on a heuristic, when you can do better?
- Avshalom 10y ago
  The thing about "heuristics" in this case is that it's a fifty-cent word for "generalizations" and generalizations are almost universally insufficient. Especially when it comes to a legal system.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    What regarding the "generalization" of sexual dimorphism causes legal issues, in your estimation?
    - hx87 10y ago
      It fails to account for edge cases, and much like software engineering, in law edge cases are 90% of the work.
      - nostrebored 10y ago
        Which edge cases? Providing a specific example would be enlightening, because as I see it the denial of sexual dimorphism typically co-opts the lives and lived experiences of intersex people or people with AIS to further the goal of a completely distinct group. There have been legal issues regarding intersex people being mutilated at birth, but that "edge case" has been sorted out.
        hx87 10y ago
        Pre-operational transsexual people and transgendered people who decide against surgery but live as a gender different from their birth one anyway are two edge cases where genitalia are a poor indicator of what their legal status should be. As for intersex people, how does the blurring (aka "denial") of sexual dimorphism diminish progress towards recognition and improving quality of life for them? If co-option does not detract from their lives and their struggles, what is the problem with co-option? Equality is not a zero-sum game, except maybe for those who discriminate.
        nostrebored 10y ago
        I fail to see how when for all intents and purposes when they are men who adopt the social construct of femininity how their legal status is in any way poorly indicated. Intersex people are still sexually dimorphic. Genitalia is one of a number of ways that someone's sex is determined. Viewing them as the sole way is a mistake, sure there are things like AIS, but even in the case of intersex people, their genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics typically develop in a normal fashion. Co-option does typically detract from their struggles. By using intersex people as a tool to push a political agenda you detract from the serious issues that surround their legal and medical troubles. You can't pretend that the actions you take while pursuing a political agenda don't have positive or negative consequences. When equality in the case that you're advocating for comes at the cost of the groups you're purporting to help, or the groups that you use as part of your political narrative, then something is probably wrong.
- hx87 10y ago
  Humans are sexually multimorphic, although a two-component principal component analysis takes care of most of the variance.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  I would say genitals as a heuristic for your legal status is probably extremely accurate. So, what sort of legal things do you think require possession of a particular type of genitals? To paraphrase the memes about gendered toys, there's nothing I'm aware of in the legal system that's operated directly by a penis or a vagina. And really when you get into it you'll find that the things people want this information for tend to be things that aren't all that great to do (read: discriminating against people on the basis of sex, or trying to use a discrepancy between reported "sex" and identified "gender" to discriminate or deny access/rights to things).
TruthAndDare 10y ago
> "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. When you put it that way, it really becomes unclear to me why it should be there at all. If we're not describing what type of biological creature a person is, and simply how they can be expected to behave, it seems like we might as well write down if the person is ill-tempered or meek, and if he or she likes to dance the waltz or the tango.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  If we're not describing what type of biological creature a person is Can you think of a reason why every single document about a person needs to note "what type of biological creature" they are? I'll give you a hint: there aren't a lot of good reasons for it :)
  - TruthAndDare 10y ago
    That wasn't what I was arguing. Regardless of whether or not we're documening sex, why document gender if it is only "a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave"?
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      We care a lot about how we expect other people to behave - in many cases, completely appropriately.

nostrebored 10y ago

>Second, "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. So even though the legal system uses "sex", what they're really describing is "gender". Really? I would say genitals as a heuristic for your legal status is probably extremely accurate. Are you denying that humans are sexually dimorphic?

DasIch 10y ago
Why rely on a heuristic, when you can do better?
Avshalom 10y ago
The thing about "heuristics" in this case is that it's a fifty-cent word for "generalizations" and generalizations are almost universally insufficient. Especially when it comes to a legal system.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  What regarding the "generalization" of sexual dimorphism causes legal issues, in your estimation?
  - hx87 10y ago
    It fails to account for edge cases, and much like software engineering, in law edge cases are 90% of the work.
    - nostrebored 10y ago
      Which edge cases? Providing a specific example would be enlightening, because as I see it the denial of sexual dimorphism typically co-opts the lives and lived experiences of intersex people or people with AIS to further the goal of a completely distinct group. There have been legal issues regarding intersex people being mutilated at birth, but that "edge case" has been sorted out.
      - hx87 10y ago
        Pre-operational transsexual people and transgendered people who decide against surgery but live as a gender different from their birth one anyway are two edge cases where genitalia are a poor indicator of what their legal status should be. As for intersex people, how does the blurring (aka "denial") of sexual dimorphism diminish progress towards recognition and improving quality of life for them? If co-option does not detract from their lives and their struggles, what is the problem with co-option? Equality is not a zero-sum game, except maybe for those who discriminate.
        nostrebored 10y ago
        I fail to see how when for all intents and purposes when they are men who adopt the social construct of femininity how their legal status is in any way poorly indicated. Intersex people are still sexually dimorphic. Genitalia is one of a number of ways that someone's sex is determined. Viewing them as the sole way is a mistake, sure there are things like AIS, but even in the case of intersex people, their genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics typically develop in a normal fashion. Co-option does typically detract from their struggles. By using intersex people as a tool to push a political agenda you detract from the serious issues that surround their legal and medical troubles. You can't pretend that the actions you take while pursuing a political agenda don't have positive or negative consequences. When equality in the case that you're advocating for comes at the cost of the groups you're purporting to help, or the groups that you use as part of your political narrative, then something is probably wrong.
hx87 10y ago
Humans are sexually multimorphic, although a two-component principal component analysis takes care of most of the variance.
ubernostrum 10y ago
I would say genitals as a heuristic for your legal status is probably extremely accurate. So, what sort of legal things do you think require possession of a particular type of genitals? To paraphrase the memes about gendered toys, there's nothing I'm aware of in the legal system that's operated directly by a penis or a vagina. And really when you get into it you'll find that the things people want this information for tend to be things that aren't all that great to do (read: discriminating against people on the basis of sex, or trying to use a discrepancy between reported "sex" and identified "gender" to discriminate or deny access/rights to things).

TruthAndDare 10y ago

> "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. When you put it that way, it really becomes unclear to me why it should be there at all. If we're not describing what type of biological creature a person is, and simply how they can be expected to behave, it seems like we might as well write down if the person is ill-tempered or meek, and if he or she likes to dance the waltz or the tango.

ubernostrum 10y ago
If we're not describing what type of biological creature a person is Can you think of a reason why every single document about a person needs to note "what type of biological creature" they are? I'll give you a hint: there aren't a lot of good reasons for it :)
- TruthAndDare 10y ago
  That wasn't what I was arguing. Regardless of whether or not we're documening sex, why document gender if it is only "a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave"?
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    We care a lot about how we expect other people to behave - in many cases, completely appropriately.