9 ms·
US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science
- crimsonalucard 8y agoIf a person identifies as a male, this is gender. His genitalia regardless of identification indicates sex. Am I correct?
- InitialLastName 8y ago> His genitalia regardless of identification indicates sex. More specifically, his biology regardless of identification. This is a surprisingly complicated gray area, though; there is a pretty wide space for biological sex to be ambiguous in different ways. For example, it is possible for hormonal differences to cause a person with XX chromosomes to develop male features, a person with XY chromosomes to develop female features, or for a person (especially an infant) to have ambiguous or hybrid features.
- hello_marmalade 8y agoThis is exceedingly rare. Intersex individuals, or individuals with genetic deformities or mutations are not that common, and none could appropriately labelled as a "third sex".
- InitialLastName 8y agoI'm not labeling any of them as a third sex, or denying that it's a rare issue. I'm just saying that there's a big enough gray area that one might want to consider it before driving policy. It's probably more common than you think too. From TFA: > By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have > differences or disorders of sex development, such as > hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical > ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia > cannot clearly be classified as male or female.
- merlincorey 8y agoNot according to the article, which purports that as many as 1 in 100 people have "differences or disorders of sex". That is a much higher number than I've heard thrown around before, and probably it has something to do with the phrasing of "differences or disorders of sex", which may include much greater differences and disorders than usually mentioned (such as XXY chromosomes, etc). It would be very interesting to know what precisely they are counting as "differences of sex" -- hopefully not simply aesthetic differences, which I believe most people are aware there is an incredible variety of expressions.
- yesenadam 8y agoWell, it does say "By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have", which sounds like it means, "by the highest estimate anyone has made", or "range with highest maximum anyone has estimated". Usually a more average number is used, than an extreme, when an actual value is unknown.
- tdb7893 8y agoYou have the basic idea correct. One thing to note is that people often use them interchangeably.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago> If a person identifies as a male, this is gender. Strictly, gender identity. > His genitalia regardless of identification indicates sex. His genitalia is one aspect of biological sex, and it typically correlates with other aspects of biological sex. If society deems genitalia as particularly important (as many have), it may also determine ascribed gender. Biological sex, ascribed gender, and gender identity are three different things (and a person may have more than one ascribed gender from different sources, though the most commonly ascribed one in the society in which they live is normally the one that is of most concern.) It's a common modern norm (that the government proposal at issue flies in the face of) to align ascribed gender with gender identity.
- blattimwind 8y agoAn US Certificate of Birth will also typically list the person's "race". Guess there's more than one thing there that could use some reform.
- danellis 8y agoI suppose that would have to start by identifying why it's necessary to record someone's "race" in the first place. Does it need to change, or can it just be removed altogether?
- pureliquidhw 8y agoFor similar reasons why biologically accurate gender is important. Those with African genetics are more susceptible to sickle cell for instance. Apparently Asians are more susceptible to liver cancer. Women are more likely to develop breast cancer, a FTM Trans patient doesn't get a male's health risk profile.
- blattimwind 8y agoFWIW in most of the civilized world (sans Americas) you'll get laughed out of the room for thinking humans are divided into races.
- AnaniasAnanas 8y agoI don't think that this is true. Race-based division is popular both in Europe and in say Japan for example.
- blattimwind 8y agoRacism is in practice a somewhat different idea ("I don't like brown people / I don't like people from Africa / I don't like muslims or what I think are muslims") from race-segregation ("DOB 4.5.1971, race hispanic"), which is something found in legislation (but is also a racist concept, obviously). You are of course correct that racism is at least somewhat widespread in most countries. The latter concept on the other hand is pretty much exclusive to the US at this point.
- gregf 8y agoI personally refuse to call anyone a male or female if they were not born with the right parts. This is a mental issue.
- tomlock 8y ago"The right parts" isn't a scientific concept.
- Varcht 8y agoWasn't it a Tom Cruise movie?
- pdabbadabba 8y agoHow does this work in practice? Do you perform pre-conversation inspections? (Feel free to save us both some embarrassment and make your reply fully gender neutral.)
- phillnom 8y agoDo you personally confirm their "parts" before talking to them?
- mattcaldwell 8y agoI personally refuse to respect you as a human being.
- JazzXP 8y agoWhat do you call someone who was born Intersex (same commonality as natural redheads) then?
- happytoexplain 8y agoThat seems unnecessarily combative, given nothing else to build on but this very short opinion.
- firemancoder 8y agoNotice the president was mentioned in the article. Tells you everything you know about it. This has very little to do with actual science, and more to do with hatred of Trump.
- epicureanideal 8y agoI highly recommend that anyone who believes the content of that editorial watch the video series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask which can be found online. The short version is, the people pushing the "biological gender is not science" narrative are themselves more driven by ideology than science, not the other way around. If they really want a special case for people whose genitalia are misformed, that's a different argument than saying we shouldn't classify people based on genetics at all. Also, if people understand that the gender on a birth certificate is genetics based, then they can choose for themselves to discuss with their potential sexual partner why the gender on their birth certificate should be interpreted a particular way due to special factors in their case.
- tomlock 8y agoBut, the idea that the classification is binary is inherently flawed if, as you state, there are special cases.
- MLR 8y agoI imagine that if one is being as technical as possible then sex is pretty unambiguous, i.e. egg/female sex cell producing -> female, sperm/male sex cell producing -> male. Of course that leads to complications when you have to try and generally apply it, which is where the ambiguity comes from.
- tomlock 8y agoIf there is ever ambiguity, the classification is not binary.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- epicureanideal 8y agoSo define it as non-binary but still based on genetics, if that's your argument. Or just M, F, and O for Other if you want to keep things simple. You could literally list their chromosome combinations to make it clear. XX, XY, XXY, whatever.
- gweinberg 8y agoWhy should there be a legal definition of gender in the first place?
- epicureanideal 8y agoJust some ideas... 1. Identification purposes. It eliminates about 50% of the population if your sex is specified on your identification. Hair color and eye color are also usually shown on a drivers license. 2. Categorization for sports competitions for fairness. 3. Categorization for restroom usage, locker rooms, etc., given that people still do on average have feelings of modesty such that they don't want to be seen undressed by the opposite sex. 4. Sexual partners may want some proof of how you were born. People could argue whether it's their right or not to have this, but overall I would guess that 90%+ of our society does still care about this, so the law could validly provide for this interest of the majority of society. 5. Laws and other treat men and women differently. Who gets drafted, for example. Retirement ages in some countries are sex-based.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Identification purposes. It eliminates about 50% of the population if your sex is specified on your identification Only to the point extent you assume external presentation matches the gender on the ID, which is less likely if that ascribed gender isn't aligned to gender identity. (But not guaranteed in any case, so not a reliable basis for elimination.) If gender on ID is based immutably on genitals at birth, it only helps eliminate people for identification purposes if those people are conveniently displaying accurate pictures of their birth genitals, which is an exceedingly rare circumstance.
- tzs 8y ago> Categorization for restroom usage, locker rooms, etc., given that people still do on average have feelings of modesty such that they don't want to be seen undressed by the opposite sex So what happens with people who have sex reassignment surgery? If Bob's got a penis now but his birth certificate says "female", Bob has to use the woman's locker room and the woman's restroom if we go by birth certificate and simple genetics. It is possible in most states to get a birth certificate updated after sex reassignment surgery, but it is not automatic, and may take time and money so there likely will be people who do not bother. BTW, a large fraction of the population doesn't want to be seen undressed in front of strangers of any sex. If we want to make the most people happy, maybe we should design things so that we have more privacy in bathrooms?
- hello_marmalade 8y agoUnfortunately, it is important for medical personnel to know whether you are biologically male or female, which is yes, very real, and also very much grounded in science. There are serious implications to avoiding reality here. People could be mistreated and misdiagnosed. I'm all for trans acceptance, but the people pushing for this stuff need to also learn to accept reality.
- alansmitheebk 8y agoAmen. It's also important to be able to identify a suspected criminal at large, a missing person, or the victims of an accident. It's also necessary to properly identify people to make sure they are not committing identity theft and fraud. None of this is possible in a world where we we're either not allowed to make that distinction or the person can choose whichever they wish to be at that specific moment in time. "Calling all cars, calling all cars. Be on the lookout for a suspect --I'm not sure what sex, I mean hey, it's not that simple, and who am I to judge. Suspect has light skin but maybe suspect identifies as black like Rachel Dolezal. We just don't know, do we... So yeah, be on the lookout for a person of indeterminate sex and race who is 5' 8". Suspect is armed and dangerous. Take caution and be politically correct. We cannot afford to hurt anyone's feeling here!"
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Unfortunately, it is important for medical personnel to know whether you are biologically male or female It's important for them to know if I'm, say, sensitive to iodine (in fact, the latter is probably far more likely to be fatal quickly if they don't know in an emergency). What that has to do with legal gender, I don't know, and in any case the aspect of biological sex medical personnel are least likely to need to know is the one this proposal makes deciding as to the immutable categorization of gender—the shape of my genitals at birth. So, no, “its for your own (medical) good” is not a tenable defense of the proposal.
- henrikschroder 8y ago> whether you are biologically male or female, which is yes, very real, and also very much grounded in science. Except those aren't the only two categories, and if you want a classification that is comprehensive and grounded in science, it will get messy and complicated very, very quickly. And, again, what has this got to do with legal gender? In case of emergency there are many things medical personnel will need to know about you in order to avoid fatal mistakes, should they appear on your birth certificate? No, of course not. So why should this?
- pokemongoaway 8y agoI am still shadow banned here on HN for questioning this narrative. Bang is encouraging us to make fake accounts by banning our long-held accounts without cause. He hides his personal political views behind the guidelines as if they are in support of his censorship, which they are not.
- epicureanideal 8y agoThere are more modern and much more accurate ways dealing with this, as discussed in the video series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask I've mentioned elsewhere. From the article: Furthermore, biology is not as straightforward as the proposal suggests. By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have differences or disorders of sex development, such as hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia cannot clearly be classified as male or female. For most of the twentieth century, doctors would often surgically alter an infant’s ambiguous genitals to match whichever sex was easier, and expect the child to adapt. Frequently, they were wrong. A 2004 study tracked 14 genetically male children given female genitalia; 8 ended up identifying as male, and the surgical intervention caused them great distress (W. G. Reiner and J. P. Gearhart N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 333–341; 2004).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]