4 ms·
> you can't get away from the fact that a substantial number of people actually do not, biologically, fall neatly into a 'male' or 'female' box. It would proba
by angersock 10y ago
> you can't get away from the fact that a substantial number of people actually do not, biologically, fall neatly into a 'male' or 'female' box.
It would probably be helpful to cite some studies here, because there's at least one gross physical characteristic the existence of which suggests just such a neat boxing.
- webmaven 10y agoThat 'gross physical characteristic' as you call it is actually present in both 'male' and 'female' humans, and can present in an ambiguous form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quigley_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quigley_scale
- angersock 10y agoThere are also human beings that are, due to genetic defect, blue-skinned--that said, hereditary methemoglobinemia is pretty rare (maybe 50 cases on record). Because of such low incidence rate, it would be silly to claim that it was worth considering when describing the human skin color spectrum. Also, the Quigley scale is useful for describing intersex people--it is designed specifically to model characteristics of a subpopulation whose size might be be negligible. Without numbers or studies, I can claim with the same accuracy that the majority of people have either a functioning penis or vagina (though, in the interest of the anatomically minded, a many of the structures are of course related). I'm merely suggesting that it'd be helpful in these discussions to have some studies backing up our assertions.