4 ms·
Nobody is saying that these categories (or any categories) are sufficient to categorize all things, only that they're sufficient to categorize the vast majority
by gameman144 6y ago
Nobody is saying that these categories (or any categories) are sufficient to categorize all things, only that they're sufficient to categorize the vast majority of things. Exceptional boundary conditions will always be present, but modeling the overwhelmingly more common non-boundary conditions with broad categories isn't dishonest and is quite useful.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoWell I wasn’t the person who brought honesty into this. But there’s a clear bias in the responses I’m getting, as well as downvotes on links I’ve shared to biologists addressing facts, indicating an insistence on treating the categorization as more important than the experience of “exceptional boundary conditions”, who are human people you and everyone else here very likely know or have met.
- tomlockwood 6y agoIt's useful, in some limited cases, to consider sex as binary. But this, > If sex is "Mostly" binary, it isn't binary. is still true.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoOnce again, the HN community has greyed a plainly stated fact. This community is not curious or interested in facts, it's reflecting the same culture war bullshit that Slashdot descended into.
- oska 6y agoYou've displayed bad faith right through this thread. Might be a good time to review the Guidelines.