10 ms·

> Sex is a multidimensional spectrum. "Sex" categories are, in fact, genders--social constructs. Sex is not a multidimensional spectrum. There are two sexes: m

> Sex is a multidimensional spectrum. "Sex" categories are, in fact, genders--social constructs. Sex is not a multidimensional spectrum. There are two sexes: male and female, this is statistically observable as a binary. Deviations from this binary are not "third" or "fourth" sexes. It's not a social phenomenon. The reason why people seem incapable of saying this today, is for political and legal aims (if you can't change legislation that refers to "sex", change what the word means), or a misguided attempt to be progressive.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Sex is not a multidimensional spectrum. Sex consists of multiple different traits which have a bimodal, not binary, distribution. > There are two sexes: male and female, Those binary sex categories are a social construct layered on top of the multidimensional physical reality.
- heurisko 5y ago
  > Sex consists of multiple different traits which have a bimodal, not binary, distribution. Sex traits in most cases follow a binary distribution, unless you take something like phenotypical height. In the aggregrate, they also form "sex" which is binary. Differences in sexual traits do not create "third, or fourth" sexes. > Those binary sex categories are a social construct layered on top of the multidimensional physical reality. This is an ideological perspective, which is pushed forwards by those who want to change the law around sex, by redefining what sex means. For example, under the Equality Act 2010 (UK), hospital wards are allowed to keep sex segregated for reasons of privacy and dignity, which to some is unacceptable. Sex is an observation of a physical reality, not a "social construct". It would have been unremarkable to say this even 5 years ago. The physical reality around sex has not changed, rather the ideology around it has, which is why I'm going to leave this discussion there, as there's no reasoning with that.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > > Sex consists of multiple different traits which have a bimodal, not binary, distribution. > Sex traits in most cases follow a binary distribution Which is exactly saying they, in the whole, actually follow a bimodal, rather than binary, distribution.
    - redbar0n 5y ago
      Sex is a bimodal distribution that is so _extremely_ polar that calling it binary would be more accurate and helpful than bimodal. Calling sex bimodal is in the large misleading, even if correct in the narrow definitional sense.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  That multidimensional physical reality is, in turn, layered on top of the binary reality that in adult, diploid mammals, the key chromosome pair is either XX or XY, and that every cell (except the somatic line) in that individual will have the same pair. The issue is that you are saying that the sexual phenotype is primary, while I claim, on the basis of biology, that the sexual genotype is primary. You appear to reject the existence of sexual genotype. On what basis? (Edit: s/haploid/diploid/)
  - muffinman26 5y ago
    The determination of sex in a biological context is based on chromosomes, hormone levels, and secondary sex characteristics. For a 101 understanding of biology, by far the most common chromosome possibilities are XX and XY, but XXY is possible, as are mutations in one chromosome that combine pieces of X and Y such that a mix of secondary sex characteristics appear. It's also possible for someone with XX chromosomes to have abnormally high levels of testosterone, or someone with XY chromosomes to have abnormally low levels of testosterone and high levels of estrogen, with results such that a visual inspection would not be able to accurately guess the underlying chromosomes. Hence, bimodal, not binary.
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      I agree with you regarding the chromosome possibilities. However, aside from rare mutations and developmental anomalies, mammals are either XX or XY. The exceptions prove the rule, and one doesn’t discard all that evidence just to accommodate minor anomalies which have adequate explanations. If you did, science would make no progress. Regarding your first paragraph, replace “biological” with “sociological”. Then, that is what has been done traditionally, in the absence of the recent ability to determine sexual genotype by DNA analysis. The Wikipedia pages on Sex[0] and Phenotypic trait[1] are actually pretty neutral. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_trait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_trait
      - muffinman26 5y ago
- yakubin 5y ago
  How is being able to be a specific party in the reproduction process a social construct? Is the categorization of penguins into egg-layers and egg-fertilizers also a social construct?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Sex is not a multidimensional spectrum. Sex consists of multiple different traits which have a bimodal, not binary, distribution. > There are two sexes: male and female, Those binary sex categories are a social construct layered on top of the multidimensional physical reality.

heurisko 5y ago
> Sex consists of multiple different traits which have a bimodal, not binary, distribution. Sex traits in most cases follow a binary distribution, unless you take something like phenotypical height. In the aggregrate, they also form "sex" which is binary. Differences in sexual traits do not create "third, or fourth" sexes. > Those binary sex categories are a social construct layered on top of the multidimensional physical reality. This is an ideological perspective, which is pushed forwards by those who want to change the law around sex, by redefining what sex means. For example, under the Equality Act 2010 (UK), hospital wards are allowed to keep sex segregated for reasons of privacy and dignity, which to some is unacceptable. Sex is an observation of a physical reality, not a "social construct". It would have been unremarkable to say this even 5 years ago. The physical reality around sex has not changed, rather the ideology around it has, which is why I'm going to leave this discussion there, as there's no reasoning with that.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > > Sex consists of multiple different traits which have a bimodal, not binary, distribution. > Sex traits in most cases follow a binary distribution Which is exactly saying they, in the whole, actually follow a bimodal, rather than binary, distribution.
  - redbar0n 5y ago
    Sex is a bimodal distribution that is so _extremely_ polar that calling it binary would be more accurate and helpful than bimodal. Calling sex bimodal is in the large misleading, even if correct in the narrow definitional sense.
wrycoder 5y ago
That multidimensional physical reality is, in turn, layered on top of the binary reality that in adult, diploid mammals, the key chromosome pair is either XX or XY, and that every cell (except the somatic line) in that individual will have the same pair. The issue is that you are saying that the sexual phenotype is primary, while I claim, on the basis of biology, that the sexual genotype is primary. You appear to reject the existence of sexual genotype. On what basis? (Edit: s/haploid/diploid/)
- muffinman26 5y ago
  The determination of sex in a biological context is based on chromosomes, hormone levels, and secondary sex characteristics. For a 101 understanding of biology, by far the most common chromosome possibilities are XX and XY, but XXY is possible, as are mutations in one chromosome that combine pieces of X and Y such that a mix of secondary sex characteristics appear. It's also possible for someone with XX chromosomes to have abnormally high levels of testosterone, or someone with XY chromosomes to have abnormally low levels of testosterone and high levels of estrogen, with results such that a visual inspection would not be able to accurately guess the underlying chromosomes. Hence, bimodal, not binary.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    I agree with you regarding the chromosome possibilities. However, aside from rare mutations and developmental anomalies, mammals are either XX or XY. The exceptions prove the rule, and one doesn’t discard all that evidence just to accommodate minor anomalies which have adequate explanations. If you did, science would make no progress. Regarding your first paragraph, replace “biological” with “sociological”. Then, that is what has been done traditionally, in the absence of the recent ability to determine sexual genotype by DNA analysis. The Wikipedia pages on Sex[0] and Phenotypic trait[1] are actually pretty neutral. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_trait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_trait
    - muffinman26 5y ago
yakubin 5y ago
How is being able to be a specific party in the reproduction process a social construct? Is the categorization of penguins into egg-layers and egg-fertilizers also a social construct?